Third Party Validation Study of Green Pakistan Programme - Reclamation and Development of Forests by Ihsan Nadir Syed

65-Trade Centre Block, M A Johar Town, Lahore (Punjab), Pakistan info@dgmepunjab.gov.pk +92-42-99233187-91

Third Party Validation Study Report

Green Pakistan Programme Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I)

Year 2016-17

46-M, Gulberg III, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan https://pakgreen.pk/ info@pakgreen.pk, pakgreen@hotmail.com

+92 (0) 42 354 414 44

Executive Summary On 11th January 2016, Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan while considering a summary submitted by the Ministry of Climate Change on the subject “Revival of Forestry and Wildlife Resources in Pakistan” had taken decision on “Reclamation & Development of Forest Areas under Green Pakistan Program. The CDWP meeting held on 10th November 2016 approved Umbrella PC-I at total cost of Rs. 3652.142 Million with the aim to launch a countrywide drive to improve and enhance forest cover of the country. Later on, the CDWP reduced share of Government of the Punjab against the PC-I cost Rs. 1283.741 Million approved by the PDWP to Rs. 1263.753 Million. In view of the importance of this initiative, the programme also included it in the 11th Five Year Plan (2013-18) approved by the Planning Commission of Pakistan. The project is also in line with relevant component on Environment and Climate Change of Vision 2025. Quantifiable objectives of GPP are: i) Road side and Canal side 0.151 Million specie planation, covering 302 AvM. ii) Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation 0.812 Million specie plantation on 1,119 acres. iii) Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests 0.050 Dry Afforestation through Seed sowing on 100 acres and 0.0114 Afforestation along 09 water harvesting devices. iv) Increase in existing cover of Bella Forests 0.189 Million Afforestation on 260 acres and Raising of P.bag nursery 737,000 Nos. v) Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests 0.087 Afforestation 200 acres, 0.285 Afforestation on 570 acres, Establishment of new Enclosure to boost Natural Regeneration in coniferous /Natural Forests re 22 Nos. (440 Acres, Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment / Guzara, 0.191 Million plants regeneration. 62 Nos. Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment (1240 Acres), 0.620 Million plants regeneration. vi) Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar), 0.065 Million Afforestation along 51 water harvesting devices. After critical review of revised PC-I document especially Quantitative Objectives, Physical and Financial Phasing, Area Statement and Implementation Strategy as well as detailed discussion with DG M&E, P&DD: key performance indicators were developed and it was agreed to validate 60% vegetation form compartments and 100% from linear. For this purpose, determined sample size was a circle with radius of 37.2 feet. As it was equivalent to 1/10th of an acre so sample count of planted species was multiplied by 10 and found per acre count. Proportionate of each planted specie in every sample count was calculated to find specie wise proportionate per forest. To validate growth of planted species both height (meter rod) and diameter (digital Vernier caliper) were measured1. TPV team adopted statistical tool of manual sampling for data collection, ANOVA for data analysis. Very first time introduced Drone Technology for monitoring and validation of afforestation and collected GPS coordinates for developing GIS Images. Road and canal side plantation was below 50% of the target and variance of average height and diameter were also not satisfactory. Under rehabilitation and restocking of historical plantation, specie selection was largely neglected across all forests and violations of space size (10’ X 6’) recorded in Changa Maanga and Chichawatni plantation. 1

Hay et al 1999

Page | II

The scrub forests are mainly famous for Kikar and pholai but eucalyptus was also planted. The analysis of height and variance data shows eucalyptus has maximum height followed by Kikar and Phulai. The analysis of diameter and variance data showed that pattern of growth of the diameter also similar to height. There are three Bella forests (Bella Randiali, Bella Qadir Abad and Dhool) where plantation was done. High variation in height variance was observed in Bella Qadir Abad and high variation in variance of diameter in Dhool forest. Under Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests in coniferous forest, only pinus trees were planted. The height of the pinus plant was observed maximum in Hanaser and minimum in Hokeria Ker. Analysis showed high variation in Hanaser. Regarding the diameter of the plant it is maximum in Khanawas and minimum in the Gohi forest. ANOVA findings showed uncertain and high variation in variance of average height and average diameter of planted species. These findings pointed out violation of spacing size and species selection. Flaws in jungle clearance, ploughing & leveling, improper earth work, poor weed management and clearance of trenches. Theses flaws may cause the damage and even slow down growth of planted species. Improper demarcation as well as irregular dimensions of water harvesting devices observed while suitability of catchment area largely ignored while selecting site for 51 RWHD/ponds under Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar). Monoculture of eucalyptus was observed, as it was s more than 65% of total irrigated plantation. Mixed culture of indigenous species should be adopted as per revised PC-I for enrichment of flora and fauna bio diversity. Environmental Impact Assessment had been incorporated. But no Pre-Assessment Reports of any of the ten of the indicators especially microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of respective forest areas were available. Therefore, TPV study was limited to validate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) mainly number of plantations, type of species, growth height and diameter measurements. On the basis of TPV study findings, GPP 2016-17 overall plantation and progress made is partially satisfactory. Mmixed culture of indigenous species not followed, spacing size largely violated, uncertain and high variation of height and diameter measurements of planted species pointed out flaws in its execution, operation and maintenance. Proper record of procurement and procedures, if followed, as per PPRA Rules, was not provided. GPS coordinates mentioned in PC-I and available with field formation are inaccurate and it would distract findings of Dashboard monitoring. Mr. Abdul Hafiz Nasir, Team Leader

Page | III

Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. II List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ VII List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... X Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................ XI Contribution ......................................................................................................................................................... XII 1.

Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................1 1.1

Introduction to the document .........................................................................................................1

1.2 Green Pakistan Programme â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I) ................................................................................................................................................1 1.3 2.

Brief Introduction of PAK GREEN ENVIRO-ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD .........................5

Validation Methodology .............................................................................................................................6 2.1

Scope of Work for the TPV Study ...................................................................................................6

2.2

Geographical Focus ..............................................................................................................................6

2.3

Implementation Methodology .........................................................................................................9

2.3.1

Team Formation ..........................................................................................................................9

2.3.2

Review of Documents & Desktop Research .......................................................................9

2.3.3

Sampling Methodology for Plantation covers................................................................ 10

2.3.3.1 Sampling Methodology for Rain Water Harvesting Devices ...................................... 10 2.3.4

Key Performance Indicators for Validation of Plantation ......................................... 11

2.3.4.1 Key Performance Indicators for Rain Water Harvesting Devices ............................ 12 2.3.5

Inception Meeting ..................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.6

Field Visit Plan ........................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.7

Field Validation .......................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.8

Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................... 13

2.3.9

Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 13

2.3.10 Limitations...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.11 3.

Copy Right .............................................................................................................................. 13

Funds Utilization Status .......................................................................................................................... 14 3.1

ADP allocation vs. Actual Releases & Actual Utilization ..................................................... 14

3.2

Procurement Process and physical verification .................................................................... 15

Validation on Quantifiable Objectives of GPP ................................................................................. 15

Data Analysis and Findings.................................................................................................................... 20 5-A-I 5.1

Total No. of Plants, Identification of Specie and its Proportionate ............................ 20 Road & Canal side Plantations ...................................................................................................... 21 Page | IV

5.2

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations.................................................... 25

5. 2.1

Chichawatni Plantation .......................................................................................................... 27

5.2.2

Pirowal Plantation .................................................................................................................... 32

5.2.3

Changa Maanga Plantation .................................................................................................... 35

5.2.4

Daphar Plantation..................................................................................................................... 40

5.2.5

Machu & Inayat Plantation .................................................................................................... 44

5.2.6

Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation ............................................................. 50

5.2.7

Ladam Sir-II................................................................................................................................. 54

5.2.8

Abbasia Plantation ................................................................................................................... 57

5.2.9 Major Weeds, Grazing & Trespassing, Poor Operation & Maintenance (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) .......................................................... 59 5.3

Increase in existing cover of Bellas Forests ........................................................................... 61

5.3.1

Bella Randiali .............................................................................................................................. 63

5.3.2

Bella Qadir Abad ........................................................................................................................ 66

.......................................................................................................................................................................... 68 5.3.3 5.4

Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests ................................................................... 71

5.4.1 5.5

Dhool Forest................................................................................................................................ 69 Kali Dali ......................................................................................................................................... 72

Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests.................................................................... 74

5.5.1

Coniferous (Protected) Forests ........................................................................................... 74

5.5.2

Guzara Forests ........................................................................................................................... 77

5. 6

Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar).......................... 78

5-A-II Height and Diameter Analysis of Planted Species ................................................................ 79 5.1

Road side and Canal side Plantation .......................................................................................... 83

5.2

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation..................................................... 85

5.2.1

Eucalyptus ................................................................................................................................... 85

5.2.2

Kikar (Acacia nilotica)............................................................................................................. 89

5.2.3

Toot (Morus alba) ..................................................................................................................... 91

5.2.4

Siris (Albizzia lebbek) ............................................................................................................. 93

5. 2.5

Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) .......................................................................................................... 95

5.2.6

Frash (Tamarix aphylla)......................................................................................................... 97

5.2.7

Mix Plantation ............................................................................................................................ 99

5.3

Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests ........................................................................... 102

5.3.1

Eucalyptus ................................................................................................................................ 102

5.3.2

Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani ..................................................................... 105 Page | V

5.3.3 5.4

Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests ................................................................ 109

5.4.1 5.5

Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai .................................................................................................... 109

Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests................................................................ 111

5.5.1 5-B

Amrood, Nim............................................................................................................................ 107

Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ....................................................................................................... 111

Rain Water Harvesting Devices................................................................................................. 114

Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 118

Conclusion, Observations and Recommendations .................................................................... 118 7.1

Observations..................................................................................................................................... 119

7.2

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 120

Annexure-I Comparative Cost Estimate of the last Sanctioned and Revised Scheme (Rs. In Million) ................................................................................................................................................................. 121 Annexure-II Scientific Name of Planted Species .................................................................................. 122 Annexure-III Field Activity ........................................................................................................................... 123 Annexure-IV ADP Allocation, Release and Utilization ....................................................................... 125 Annexure-V Procured items (Water Pumps) ........................................................................................ 126 Annexure-VI Cost Breakup of Expenditures per Acre Afforestation for Irrigated plantation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 127 Annexure-VII Rough Cost Estimate of Rain Water Harvesting (RWHD) .................................... 128 Annexure-VIII GPS Coordinates ................................................................................................................. 129

Page | VI

List of Tables Table 1 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP 2016-17 .......................................................................................3 Table 2 Programme Summary GPP 2016-2017 .........................................................................................4 Table 3 List of Forests/Area/AvM ...................................................................................................................8 Table 4 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization ....................................................................... 14 Table 5 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP ...................................................................................................... 15 Table 6 Total No. of Planted Species – Road & Canal side (Linear) Plantation ........................... 21 Table 7 Specie wise Status of Plantation.................................................................................................... 22 Table 8 Specie wise Status of Plantation.................................................................................................... 23 Table 9 Specie wise Status of Plantation.................................................................................................... 24 Table 10 Total No. of Planted Species - Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) .................................................................................................... 26 Table 11 Chichawatni Compartments and Total Area - GPP 2016-17 .......................................... 27 Table 12 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Chichawatni Plantation ............................... 28 Table 13 Specie wise Plantation – Chichawatni Plantation ................................................................ 29 Table 14 Pirowal Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .................................................... 32 Table 15 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Pirowal Plantation ........................................ 32 Table 16 Specie wise Plantation – Pirowal Plantation ......................................................................... 33 Table 17 Changa Maanga Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ................................... 35 Table 18 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Changa Maanga Plantation ........................ 36 Table 19 Specie wise Plantation –Changa Maanga ................................................................................ 37 Table 20 Daphar Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17..................................................... 40 Table 21 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Daphar Plantation ......................................... 41 Table 22 Specie wise Plantation –Daphar Plantation ........................................................................... 42 Table 23 Machu & Inayat Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .................................... 44 Table 24 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Machu Plantation .......................................... 45 Table 25 Specie wise Plantation –Machu Plantation............................................................................. 46 Table 26 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Inaayat Plantation ......................................... 47 Table 27 Specie wise Plantation –Inayat Plantation ............................................................................. 48 Table 28 Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 29 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation ..................................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 30 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) ........................................ 52 Table 31 Ladam Sir-II Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .......................................... 54 Table 32 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation ............................... 55 Table 33 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II ...................................................................................... 56 Table 34 Abbasia Plantation Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ............................ 57 Table 35 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation ............................... 57 Table 36 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation – GPP 2016-17.......................................... 58 Table 37 Total No. of Planted Species Increase in existing cover of Bella Forests .................... 62 Table 38 Bella Randiali Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ........................................ 63 Table 39 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Randiali .................................................. 63 Table 40 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali – GPP 2016-17 .................................................... 64 Table 41 Bella Qadir Abad Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ................................. 66 Table 42 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Qadir Abad ............................................ 66 Table 43 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad – GPP 2016-17 .............................................. 67 Table 44 Dhool Forest Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ......................................... 69

Page | VII

Table 45 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest – GPP 2016-17 ...................................................... 70 Table 46 Total No. of Planted Species Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests......... 71 Table 47 Kali Dali Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17................................................... 72 Table 48 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali – GPP 2016-17 ............................................................... 73 Table 49 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Murree Forest Range.................................................................................................................. 74 Table 50 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range – GPP 2016-17 ..................... 75 Table 51 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Rawalpindi Forest Range ......................................................................................................... 76 Table 52 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range – GPP 2016-17 ............. 77 Table 53 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) ............................................................................................................................... 79 Table 54 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) ............................................................................................................................... 80 Table 55 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests).......................................................................................................................................................... 80 Table 56 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests).......................................................................................................................................................... 81 Table 57 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests) ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Table 58 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests) ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Table 59 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests)..................................................................................................................................... 82 Table 60 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests) ..................................................................................................................................... 82 Table 61 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) .... 82 Table 62 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) .... 82 Table 63 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo)................................ 83 Table 64Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) ........................... 84 Table 65 Height of Eucalyptus ...................................................................................................................... 85 Table 66 Diameter of Eucalypts ................................................................................................................... 87 Table 67 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) ................................................................................................ 89 Table 68 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) .......................................................................................... 90 Table 69 Height of Toot (Morus alba) ......................................................................................................... 91 Table 70 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba) ................................................................................................... 92 Table 71 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek) .................................................................................................. 93 Table 72 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) ............................................................................................. 94 Table 73 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) .............................................................................................. 95 Table 74 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) ......................................................................................... 96 Table 75 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ............................................................................................ 97 Table 76 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ....................................................................................... 98 Table 77 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ............................................................. 99 Table 78 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ..................................................... 100 Table 79 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman .................................................................................................... 101 Table 80 Height of Eucalyptus .................................................................................................................... 102 Table 81 Diameter of Eucalyptus ............................................................................................................... 104 Table 82 Height of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani ................................................. 105 Table 83 Diameter of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani ............................................ 106

Page | VIII

Table 84 Height of Amrood, Nim ............................................................................................................... 107 Table 85 Diameter of Amrood, Nim .......................................................................................................... 108 Table 86 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai ................................................................................ 109 Table 87 Diameter of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai ........................................................................... 110 Table 88 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ........................................................................................... 111 Table 89 Diameter of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ..................................................................................... 113

Page | IX

List of Figures Figure 1 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization ..................................................................... 14 Figure 2 Specie wise Plantation – Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R ......................... 22 Figure 3 Specie wise Plantation – Bhakhar ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 4 Specie wise Plantation – Mian Wali ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 5 Specie wise Plantation - Chichawatni Forest ......................................................................... 29 Figure 6 Specie wise Plantation - Pirowal ................................................................................................. 33 Figure 7 Specie wise Plantation – Changa Maanga ................................................................................ 37 Figure 8 Specie wise Plantation – Daphar Plantation ........................................................................... 42 Figure 9 Specie wise Plantation – Machu Plantation ............................................................................ 46 Figure 10 Specie wise Plantation – Inayat Plantation .......................................................................... 48 Figure 11 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) ...................................... 52 Figure 12 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II .................................................................................... 56 Figure 13 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation ....................................................................... 58 Figure 14 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali ................................................................................. 64 Figure 15 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad ........................................................................... 67 Figure 16 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest ................................................................................... 70 Figure 17 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali ............................................................................................ 73 Figure 18 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range .................................................. 75 Figure 19 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range .......................................... 77 Figure 20 Height Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) ................................... 83 Figure 21 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia Sissoo) ........................ 84 Figure 22 Height of Eucalyptus ..................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 23 Diameter of Eucalyptus ................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 24 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) ............................................................................................... 89 Figure 25 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) ......................................................................................... 90 Figure 26 Height of Toot (Morus alba) ....................................................................................................... 91 Figure 27 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba).................................................................................................. 92 Figure 28 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek)................................................................................................. 93 Figure 29 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) ........................................................................................... 94 Figure 30 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis)............................................................................................. 95 Figure 31 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) ....................................................................................... 96 Figure 32 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ........................................................................................... 97 Figure 33 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ..................................................................................... 98 Figure 34 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ........................................................... 99 Figure 35 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ................................................... 100 Figure 36 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman .................................................................................................. 101 Figure 37 Height of Eucalyptus .................................................................................................................. 103 Figure 38 Diameter of Eucalyptus ............................................................................................................. 104 Figure 39 Height of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani ...................................................... 105 Figure 40 Diameter of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani................................................. 106 Figure 41 Height of Amrood, Nim .............................................................................................................. 107 Figure 42 Diameter of Amrood, Nim ........................................................................................................ 108 Figure 43 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar Phulai ....................................................................................... 109 Figure 44 Diameter of Poplar, Tun Jaman ............................................................................................. 110 Figure 45 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ........................................................................................ 112 Figure 46 Diameter of Pinus ....................................................................................................................... 113

Page | X

Acronyms ANOVA

Analysis of Variance

CCF

Chief Conservator of Forests

CDWP

Central Development Working Party

DFO

District Forest Officer

DG M&E

Directorate General Monitoring & Evaluation

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

FW&F D

Forest, Wildlife & Fisheries Department

FSC

Federal Steering Committee

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GIS

Geographical Information System

GPP

Green Pakistan Programme

GOP

Government of Pakistan

KPIs

Key Performance Indicators

M&E

Monitoring & Evaluation

MOCC

Ministry of Climate Change

MPR

Monthly Progress Reports

PC-I

Planning Commission (Form-I)

P & DD

Planning & Development Department

Programme Director

PDWP

Provincial Development Working Party

Prime Minister

PMU

Programme Management Unit

PPRA

Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority

RWHD

Rain Water Harvesting Device

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

TPV

Third Party Validation

Page | XI

Contribution Reviewed by:  

Mr. Ghazanfar Mubin – Sr. Specialist Research & Development, DG M&E Mr. M Sadiq Munawar – Forest, Live Stock and Fisheries Expert, DG M&E

Report Writing:  

Mr. Ihsan Nadir Syed – Research & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rashid Mehmood – Plant Ecologist/Forester

Monitoring Plan for Validation, Data Analysis:   

Mr. Abdul Hafeez Nasir – Ecologist, Team Leader Mr. Ihsan Nadir Syed – Research & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rashid Mehmood – Plant Ecologist/Forester

Field Monitoring and Data Collection:      

Mr. Abdul Hafeez Nasir – Ecologist, Team Leader Mr. Ihsan Nadir Syed – Research & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rashid Mehmood – Plant Ecologist Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad – Restoration Ecologist Mr. Umair Rasheed – GIS Expert Mr. Ibtihaj Shabbir – Research Associate

Page | XII

Introduction and Background

1.1

Introduction to the document

This document presents a detailed report of third party validation of the Green Pakistan Programme - Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I) for the year 2016-17. I t had been conducted from May 29 to July 27, 2018. To monitor and validate the forest resources and their changes is key to national and international environmental and developmental policy processes. It is required by many international agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the UN Forest Instrument and the Sustainable Developments Goals (SDGs). The data is presented both in self-explanatory graphic and tabulated forms. For ease of reading and understanding the overall, region and species wise data analysis is given in the main text while detailed information is given in the appendices.

1.2

Green Pakistan Programme – Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I)

Punjab being a poor forest cover province requires drastic steps to increase its forest area in next few years’ time by adopting two-prong strategy including short term/fast track measures and long-term actions. It is an integral part of the assigned task of Forestry Sector to establish and manage various components of forests (Coniferous forests, Scrub Forests, Irrigated Plantations, Riverain Forests, linear Plantations and rangelands). On 11th January 2016, Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan while considering a summary submitted by the Ministry of Climate Change on the subject “Revival of Forestry and Wildlife Resources in Pakistan” had taken decision on “Reclamation & Development of Forest Areas” under Green Pakistan Program. The CDWP meeting held on 10th November 2016 approved Umbrella PC-I at total cost of Rs. 3652.142 Million with the aim to launch a countrywide drive to improve and enhance forest cover of the country. Later on, the CDWP reduced share of Government of the Punjab against the PC-I cost Rs. 1283.741 Million approved by the PDWP to Rs. 1263.753 Million (Annexure-I). In view of the importance of this initiative, the programme also included it in the 11th Five Year Plan (2013-18) approved by the Planning Commission of Pakistan. The project is also in line with relevant component on Environment and Climate Change of Vision 2025. The programme is in consonance with the overall objectives of forestry sector. The main objective of the GPP is reclamation, rehabilitation and development of the existing forest and enhancing tree cover on farmlands through social forestry.

Page | 1

As the GPP goal is “Reclamation & Development of Forest Areas”, so targets are designed in such a way to achieve the following sectorial objectives:    

To promote sustainably managed forests through social forestry To mitigate the climate changes in the province To improve the recharge of aquifer (Pothwar) To increase the soil conservation

The programme is in consonance with the overall objectives of forestry sector. As earlier mentioned goals it is in also in consistence with the overall objectives of forestry sector viz a viz improvement of environment, rehabilitation of climate, rehabilitation of flora and fauna, to control pollution, to rehabilitate forests, wildlife and other vulnerable ecosystems.

SDG 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and revers land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

GPP is in line with the international and national obligations regarding forestry and forest resources. It is also in line with the national climate change policy and its implementation framework. The proposed project also addresses Punjab Growth Strategy issues and parameters.

International 2030 UN Development Agenda known as Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 15.2: By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.

(SDGs) have also set goals especially (SDG 13 – 17) for developing and implementing environmentally sound solutions. Under SDGs target 15.2 each country has responsibility to protect, enhance and sustainably manage its forest areas by 2030.

Page | 2

Quantifiable (Physical) Objectives of the GPP: Detail discussion on physical objectives available in detail under relevant topics. Table 1 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP 2016-17 Sr. #

Forest Component

Area /Length (Acres/AvM)

Road Side and Canal Side Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations

No. of Plants to be planted

302

15,100

1,119

812,815

Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests

100

50,000

Increase in Existing Cover of Belas Forests

260

188,760

Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forest

200

5-a

Coniferous Forests

570

28,500

Protection and Augmentation temperature forests (Pothwar)

100

50,000

2,651

1,145,175

dry

Establishment of New Enclosures to boost the Natural Regeneration in Coniferous/Natural Forests

Construction of Water Harvesting Devices

82,000

2,733

1,227,175

Total (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 5-a + 6 + 8)

Page | 3

Table 2 Programme Summary GPP 2016-2017 1

Programme Title

Green Pakistan Program â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I)

Location (Districts)

Attock, Bhakhar, Bhawalpur, Chakwaal, Chichawatni, Gujarat, Jhelum, Kasur, Lahore, Layyah, Khanewal, Mianwali, Rahim Yar Khan, Rawalpindi,

Authority responsible for: 3

Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Climate Change (50%)

Sponsoring

Government of Punjab through Punjab Forest Department (50%)

Execution

Forest Department of the Punjab

Operation & Maintenance

Punjab Forest Department through respective Conservators of Forests and Divisional Forest Officers.

Concerned Federal Ministry

Ministry of Islamabad

Gestation Period

05 years (60 months) 2016-2021

PC-I Original Cost

PKR 1,283.753 Million

PC-I Revised Cost

PKR 1,263.753 Million

1st Year Allocation

PKR. 255.281 Million

1st Year Actual Release

PKR. 255.281 Million

Climate

Change,

GOP,

10 1st Year Actual Utilization

PKR 254.077 Million (Till 30-06-2017)

11 1st Year Actual Utilization (%)

99.525% (30-06-2017)

Page | 4

12 Approval Date (Revised PC-I)

19 April 2017

13 Programme Start Date

01 July 2016

14 Programme Start Completion Date

30 June 2021

Source: Revised PC-I and Progress Reports

1.3

Brief Introduction of PAK GREEN ENVIRO-ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD

Pak Green Group was established during the year 2009. The group is providing different services to commercial & industrial region in the field of Environment regarding Environmental approvals, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), Analytical monitoring, air emission control devices, legal services, wastewater treatment systems, planning & design of water supply & sewerage system networks. The company also deals in import and manufacturing of different industrial and laboratory equipment. The Pak Green Group mainly consists of four divisions as follow:    

Pak Green Enviro-Engineering (Pvt.) Pak Green Laboratories (Environmental division) Pak Green Techno-Legal services Pak Green Research Institute

Our goal is to be the premier worldwide Monitoring and Consultancy firm, focusing on water, environment, infrastructure, resource management, energy, and international development services. The objective of its creation was to provide reliable environmental services, attain reliance in environmental consultancy and replace foreign consultants. The Company has bright and highly qualified skilled staff, which is committed to quality in every aspect of its operation. Board of Directors comprising a Chief Executive and Directors manages the Company. The day-to-day projects of the Company are looked after by the Directors assisted by Environmental Professionals/Environmental Lawyers. The project management division is responsible for management of projects.

Page | 5

Validation Methodology

The Planning & Development Department Govt. of the Punjab made the Request for Third Party Validation of GPP. As a first stance the Terms of Reference of the TPV were discussed in a meeting held in the office of Director General M&E. The TPV team leader shared the proposed ToRs with the Director General M&E and the team, for their review and approval. The formal approval of the ToRs was granted by the Directorate General M&E, Authority. The detailed validation methodology was designed prior to the data collection. The Director General M&E and Chief Regional Planning, P&DD, Govt. of the Punjab approved the methodology. Plantation covers:   

Physical Validation of (50%) compact, (100%) linear plantation covers on sampled based approach Drone Ariel View Recordings of (50%) compact plantation covers GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization of selected compartments

Rain Water Harvesting Devices:   

2.1

Physical Validation of (20%) Rain Water Harvesting Devices on sampled based approach Drone Ariel View Recordings GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization of selected Rain Water Harvesting Devices

Scope of Work for the TPV Study

Scope of work was to validate GPP Annual Phasing of Physical Targets 2016-17, as defined in the terms of reference of the TPV Study, included: I. II. III. IV. V.

2.2

To validate progress against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)on sample-based approach To validate that the executing agency (PMU, GPP) is working in the framework and scope of programme To validate the Implementation Methodology for different quantifiable objectives and validation of such procedures Overall utilization of funds is as per approved PC-I To furnish certain recommendations for better future program implementation

Geographical Focus

Under GPP targets 2016-17, compact and linear plantation was done all over the Punjab. Kasur, Chichawatni, LSNP, Multan, R. Y. Khan, Layyah, Gujarat, D. G. Khan Forest Division for Irrigated Plantations.

Page | 6

Murree, Kahuta, Kotlisatian for Coniferous Forest area. Attock, Chakwaal and Jhelum Forest Division for Scrub and Range Land areas. Gujarat and Sialkot for Bella Forest area. Mianwali, Bhakhar and Lahore Forest Division for Linear Plantation. GIS based map of the Punjab Province digitizing geographically focused target districts is as under:

Page | 7

Component wise Details of geographical locations are attached as under. Table 3 List of Forests/Area/AvM Sr. #

Component

Circle

Division

Road Side and Canal Side Plantation

Bhawalpur

3 3-a

Name of Forest/Area

Bahawalpur-Hasilpur Road KM 11-95/LR Sargodha Mianwali MLLC RD 0-131 L&R Bhakhar MLLC RD 131-172/L&R Rehabilitation Bhawalpur LSNP Div LSNP Sub Div and Restocking Ladam Sir-ll Ladam Sir-ll of Historical R. Y. Khan Abbasia Plantation Planation Lahore Kasur Forest Changa Manga Forest Forest Circle Division Gujranwala Gujarat Forest Daphar Irrigated Plantation Division Multan Chichawatni Chichawatni Irrigated Forest Division Plantation Multan Div Pirowal DG Khan Layyah Machu/Inayat Inayat Restoration and Rawalpindi Attock Kali Dili Improvement of Scrub Forests Construction of Rawalpindi Attock Mari, Taiwan-ll, Jalwal, Ban Water Ramy Shah, Ban Ramy Shah, Harvesting Jangla Utran RF, Taiwan-l, Devices in Chack Fateh Khan, Fatuwala Scrub Forests 09 Nos Chakwaal 25 Nos Jhelum Lahore/Skp Gujarat

Increase in Lahore Existing Cover Gujranwala of Belas Forests

Rehabilitation Rawalpindi of Guzara and Protected Forest

Guzara

5-a

Coniferous Forests

Murree

Rawalpindi

26 Nos Karol Dhool Forest Bella Randiali Bella Qadir Abad Kahuta Kallar Seydan Kotli Sattian Murree Dewal Aucha Gohi Patriata Hokeria Ker

Page | 8

5-b

Rawalpindi

North

Construction of Rawalpindi Water Harvesting Devices in Coniferous Forests

North

Hanaser Chonoyan Khanwas Jhila Chirarah, Keral, Talater, Bhangal, Jhila Chirarah, Chanam, Bhalakhar, Rajdhani, Banahal, Balima, Thuter 22 Nos

Source: PC-I and Field Visit

2.3

Implementation Methodology

To validate the programme interventions, following methodology was adopted. 2.3.1 Team Formation The validation team for TPV was constituted in a meeting held in the office of Pak-Green. The team was constituted under the patronage of Abdul Hafeez Nasir, CEO Pak-Green Enviro-Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. The team comprised of the followings: Director General (M&E), Planning and Development Department, Govt. of the Punjab. The team comprised of the followings: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

2.3.2 Review of Documents & Desktop Research         

Documents received from DG M &E, along with other documents received from PMU, GPP were reviewed. In addition to desktop research was also carried out. Revised PC-I Progress Reports collected during field visits http://dgmepunjab.gov.pk/ http://www.mocc.gov.pk/ https://fwf.punjab.gov.pk/ http://www.pndpunjab.gov.pk/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1025728/icode/ https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/PAK

Page | 9

2.3.3 Sampling Methodology for Plantation covers Sample Size Determination for Plantation covers Unit of Analysis was “number of planted species per Acre". To evaluate the number of planted species per acre measuring tape method was used and the data of the sample area was extrapolated. For this purpose, planted species were counted in a circle of 37.2 feet radius. It was 1/10 of the acre2. Sample size = 4,347.46158 ft2 Radius = r = 37.2 ft. Pie = π = 22/7 = 3.14 Area = A = πr2 A = 22/7 x 37.22 ≈ 4,347.46158 ft2 01 Acre = 43,474.6158 Square Feet (ft2) No. of Planted species per Acre = No. of planted species counted per sample size x 10 2.3.3.1 Sampling Methodology for Rain Water Harvesting Devices Sample Size Determination for Rain Water Harvesting Devices Unit of Analysis was Rain Water Harvesting Device. For validation of RWHDs Population Proportion sampling technique used on Unit of Analysis/outcome with 95% Confidence Interval and 5% Margin of Error. Formula (Population proportion Sampling) = Population Proportion Sample Size of had further been divided among 3 (coniferous, scrub and dry temperature forests) components on pro rata basis. Thus, equal proportion of every district as per total sample size 16 was evaluated. Width and Length both were measured through measuring tape. Spill way were also checked. Mainly afforestation along (WHD) was evaluated.

(Hay et al 1999)

Page | 10

2.3.4 Key Performance Indicators for Validation of Plantation On the basis of review of documents and as per deliverables of Third Party Validation following key Performance Indicators had been developed with input of PMU and DG M&E, P&DD. I. II.

Total No. of Planted Species (Per Acre, Forest & Component wise) Identification of Planted Species (as per Revised PC-I)

III.

Proportionate of Identified Planted Species (Forest wise)

IV.

Specie wise Growth Height & Diameter Analysis

Drone Ariel view

VI.

GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization 1) Total No. of Planted species per Acre, Forest & Component wise

To calculate area wise total number of planted species per forest. Number of planted species calculated per acre as per technique discussed under “sample size determination for plantation covers” multiplied by number of acres per forest. 

Total No. of Planted species per Forest = No. of Planted species per Acre x Total Number of Acres per Forest



Specie wise Total No. of Plantation per Forest Area = Total No. of Planted species per Compartment x No. of Compartment(s)

Proportionate of every planted species of each sample size was calculated. Average of proportionate across all sample sizes was multiplied by ten to calculate per acre proportionate. On the basis of average proportionate across all sample size and per acre total proportionate per forest for all planted specie was calculated separately. Scientific names of all planted species are available in (Annexure-II) 2) Height and Diameter of the Planted species To evaluate Height (H) of the planted species, it was directly measured in meters (m) using meter rod. Diameter of the stem measured in centimeter (cm) using digital venire caliper. Measurement of Height and Diameter were carried out to calculate growth of the planted species.3 3) Drone Ariel View Recordings It was also agreed to monitor fifty percent of the area through drone camera recordings but it was impossible to fly drone cameras in certain areas due to plantation along high and 3

(Hay et al 1999)

Page | 11

dense forest cover. However, it was impossible to fly drone in protected (coniferous) forests mainly due to unfavorable weather conditions especially in coniferous forests. 4) GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization It was committed to provide GIS images after digitization based on GPS coordinates. First, GPS Coordinates were very much delayed by the PMU team. Later on, a major mismatch was observed in coordinates available in PC-I and those provided by department team (DFO Offices), if any. In addition to it no official record of coordinates was provided in Rawalpindi Forest Division both (North, Murree) as well as Chakwaal and Jhelum to TPV team. Even than TPV, teams had collected GPS coordinates, selected digitized images are attached in relevant analysis of components. 2.3.4.1 Key Performance Indicators for Rain Water Harvesting Devices Width and Length both were measured through measuring tape. Spill way were also checked. Mainly afforestation along (WHD) was also evaluated for validation. I. II. III. IV.

Afforestation Measurement of Dimensions, Overview of Enhancement Areas and Spill Ways Drone Ariel View Recordings GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization

2.3.5 Inception Meeting An inception meeting was held with the GPP PMU team 30th of May 2018. The aim of the meeting was to develop a mutual understanding on the validation methodology and get the validation tools and field visit plan approved by DG M& E, P &DD. Moreover, the data collection tools were also field-tested during the visit on 4th of June 2018. The changes envisaged in the field-testing were incorporated in the tools before its field execution. 2.3.6 Field Visit Plan The field visit plan was prepared to carry out the data validation in all the area. A rigorous plan of fifteen days divided into two phases was prepared and got approved from the Directorate General M&E as following: 

Phase- I: 09-days (04th – 12th June 2018)



Phase –II: 06-days (20th – 26th June 2018)

It was also shared with the relevant stakeholders before execution.

Page | 12

2.3.7 Field Validation A 15-day field activity (Annexure-III) was conducted to execute the field validation. A team of 06-members was constituted to execute this process. The team worked in a group formation. 2.3.8 Data Analysis and Reporting After the field exercise primary data collected from the field was entered in the MS Excel and used Data Analysis tool of ANOVA Single Factor for statistical analysis of recorded data of Height and Diameter among all forests of same component to generate the results for reporting. The results, findings and observations are incorporated in the report. Figures of Graphs were developed selecting the relevant values of the findings from the Tables. Some species were planted in a particular area, in this case, simple average was calculated through MS Excel and graph developed. 2.3.9 Ethical Considerations Guidance on how to collect, compile and analyse forest information is fundamental to this endeavour. TPV team followed Volunteer Guidelines on National Forest Monitoring4 during the process. 2.3.10 Limitations Limitations of the validation are as under: I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

Inappropriate provision of requested documents for TPV GPP 2016-17 especially of Procurement and Financial utilization by PMU team. Monitoring Record of planted species and number of plants was not provided by PMU, GPP. Monitoring Record of planted species Height and Diameter (girth) measurements on annual basis had neither been maintained at PMU nor provided by Field formation. Standards for classification of â&#x20AC;&#x153;problematic landâ&#x20AC;? neither had been described in revised PC-I nor by Field Formation although Eucalyptus planted across all forests. Proportionate of selected species and their ability of carbon sequestration and nitrogen-fixing in order to mitigate the climate change was undefined in revised PCI. Provided data of beneficiaries under Guzara component was not verifiable.

2.3.11 Copy Right The consultancy firm (Pak Green) will hand over all material collected and the report in hard and soft copy to the Directorate General M&E (DG M&E). The DG M&E will have copy rights over all the documents / material collected and produced during or because of the validation.

http://www.fao.org/3/a-I6767e.pdf

Page | 13

Funds Utilization Status

As required data partially provided by field formation and PMU, so it was done accordingly. I. II.

ADP allocation vs. Actual Releases & Actual Expenditures Procurement Process and physical verification

During field visits, physical assets were observed but on requesting PMU time and again to provide record of procurement process no documents shared with TPV team. Field formation and PMU kept on spinning and adopted delaying tactics. TPV team is limited to validate procurement process and physical verification. No detail of Actual Expenditures provided against Total Cost as per “Annual Phasing of Physical Targets” Appendix-II available in revised PC-I. Therefore, TPV team is limited to analyse only provided data and documents (Annexure-IV).

3.1

ADP allocation vs. Actual Releases & Actual Utilization

Analysis of Actual Allocations verses Actual Release and Utilization is as under: Table 4 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization YEAR

ACTUAL ALLOCATION

2016-17 PROVINCIAL

FEDERAL

132.69

122.591

ACTUAL RELEASES

ACTUAL UTILIZATION

PROVINCIAL FEDERAL PROVINCIAL FEDERAL 132.69

122.591

132.183

121.894

Source: Progress Report Annexure -I Figure 1 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization

Rs. In Millions

132.69

122.591

PROVINCIAL Series1

132.69

FEDRAL

ACTUAL ALLOCATION 132.69 122.591

132.183

122.591

PROVINCIAL

FEDRAL

ACTUAL RELEASES 132.69 122.591

121.894

PROVINCIAL

FEDRAL

ACTUAL UTILIZATION 132.183 121.894

GPP 2016-17 Actual Utilization was PKR 254.077(99.525%). As object code wise Actual Expenditures status of was not provided by PMU so no financial analysis is available.

Page | 14

3.2

Procurement Process and physical verification

TPV team observed Water pumps (Annexure-V) installed and functional at Bella Forests in Gujarat. As no documents of Procurement process provided by field formation and PMU, GPP for review although it was done during the year 2016-17.

Validation on Quantifiable Objectives of GPP

The programme documents including the Revised PC- I, Progress Reports were evaluated and ascertained on the findings of field data collection. Table 7 below highlights certain points where there are discrepancies among both the documents and field implementation: Table 5 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP Sr. #

Quantifiable Objective

Road & Canal side Plantations

Area/ Length No. of Plants to be Validation by Pak-Green (Acres/AvM/N planted (Nos) Millions o.)

Afforestation (500 plants at 10 x 10 82 AvM along 0.041 spacing) Road side

220 AvM along 0.11 Canal side

Number wise partially achieved (Table 6) only 53% of the target.

Number wise partially achieved (Table 6) only 44%, 62 % of the target.

Page | 15

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations Afforestation (726 plants per Acre at 1119 Acres 10 X 6 spacing)

0.812

Number wise achieved (Table 8). Analysis of Height and Diameter measurements data points out serious concerns regarding growth.

Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests Dry Afforestation through Seed sowing 100

0.050

Partially Achieved

Water harvesting device

Achieved (observations)

Afforestation along water harvesting 9 device (1000 No.)

0.0114

Partially Achieved

Soil Conservation works (1000 cft)

Achieved

0.189

Number wise achieved (Table 26)

68,500

Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests Afforestation (726 plants per Acre at 260 10 X 6 spacing)

Analysis of Height and Diameter measurement data points out

Page | 16

serious concerns regarding growth. Raising of P.bag nursery

0.737 Million

Achieved

0.087

Partially Achieved

Closure to boost Natural Regeneration 22 Nos. (440 0.191 / Establishment of new Enclosure Acre) Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment / Guzara

Partially Achieved

Afforestation (planting of large sized 570 50 No. Cir plants and sowing in trenches)

Number wise achieved (Table 49, 51).

Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests Afforestation 435 Plant per Ac

200

0.285

Analysis of Height and Diameter measurement data points out some concerns regarding growth. Water

harvesting

device

with 22

Achieved (serious observations)

Page | 17

afforestation 22 Nos Afforestation along water harvesting 22 device (1000 No.)

0.044

Not Achieved

Construction of Vegetative loose stone 30,000 retaining wall/ check dams (1000 cft / Ac)

0.02

Achieved

Construction of vegetated gabion

17,000

0.0113

Partially Achieved

Vegetated soft gabions retaining walls

26,000

0.0173

Partially Achieved

Brush wattles/ Brush layering / 26,000 fences/ Hedges etc.

0.0173

Partially Achieved

Closure to boost Natural Regeneration 62 Nos. 0.620 / Establishment of new Enclosure Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment (1240 Ac)

Partially Achieved

Page | 18

Protection and Augmentation of dry temperate forests (Pothwar) Dry Afforestation through Seed sowing 100

0.0500

Partially Achieved

Water harvesting device

Achieved (serious observations)

Afforestation along water harvesting 51 Nos. device (1000 No.)

0.065

Not Achieved

Soil Conservations

Achieved

20,900

Source: PC-I, Field Visits Data

Page | 19

Data Analysis and Findings

As mentioned in Validation Methodology, the field data was collected separately for different planted tree species under each component. So, the data analysis is also conducted as component wise.

5-A-I Total No. of Plants, Identification of Specie and its Proportionate Under this part of analysis following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) analysis carried out:     

Total No. of Planted Species (per Acre, Forest & Component wise) Identification of Planted Species (as per Revised PC-I) Proportionate of Identified Planted Species (Forest wise) Drone Arial View Recordings GIS Digitization

Drone Ariel recordings are available in the DVD attached with the document.

Page | 20

5.1

Road & Canal side Plantations

These are avenues of trees planted along roadside, In Punjab total area under Road side plantations is 6624 Avenue Miles (AvM). Total of 318 Av M (500 plants per AvM) area tackled during 2016-17. Plants like Shisham, Kikar, Tun, Arjan, Nim, Toot, Dhrek and a variety of ornamental plants would be planted to conserve the biodiversity. Table 6 Total No. of Planted Species â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Road & Canal side (Linear) Plantation Road Side & Canal Side Plantation Location Sr. # 1 2 3

Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R Bhakhar MLLC RD 131-172/L&R Mian Wali MLLC RD 0-131 L&R

Actual No. of Plants/ Acre

Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I

Per Acre Difference

Difference %age

Actual %age

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

234

500

-266

-53%

47.00%

19,188

41,000

-21,812

280

500

-220

-44%

56.00%

100

28,000

50,000

-22,000

190

500

-310

-62%

38.00%

120

22,800

60,000

-37,200

302

69,988

151,000

-81, 012

(Table 5) shows that in sample selected area Plantation per AvM is 234 Nos. on Bhawalpur Hasilpur Road, 190 Nos. in Mianwali and 280 Nos respectively against required 500 Nos. When projected it showed total difference of -81,012 Nos. in all three areas.

Page | 21

Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 7 Specie wise Status of Plantation

Not As per PC - I

PC-I Species Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Nim Toot Dhrek

Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R Planted Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Species Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre)

Eucalyptus

234

100%

500

(Table 7) clearly indicates violation of selection of proposed specie in Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R. Figure 2 Specie wise Plantation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R

Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R

Eucalyptus 100%

Page | 22

Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 8 Specie wise Status of Plantation

Not As per PC - I

PC-I Species Kikar Shisham Tun Arjan Nim Toot Dhrek

Bhakhar 131-172 Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre) 179 64% 319 101 36% 181

Planted Species Kikar Shisham

Total

280

500

(Table 8) shows that both planted species are as per PC-I. Figure 3 Specie wise Plantation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bhakhar

Bhakhar 131-172

Shisham 36%

Kikar 64%

Page | 23

Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 9 Specie wise Status of Plantation

Not As per PC - I

PC-I Species Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Nim Toot Dhrek

Planted Species

Mian Wali 0-131 Actual Count (Nos. Plants Per Acre) % age

Eucalyptus

190

PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)

100%

500

(Table 9) clearly indicates violation of selection of proposed specie in Mianwali. Figure 4 Specie wise Plantation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Mian Wali

Mian wali 0-131

Eucalyptus 100%

Page | 24

5.2

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations

These are manmade forests and are in the shape of blocks of tree plantations in the canal irrigated tract, raised originally to cater for the fuel wood requirements of the railway steam engines: the first fabricated forest of this type was established at Changa Manga in 1866. These plantations are spread over an area of 370,657 acre in different districts of the Punjab having irrigation water facilities. An area of 1,119 acres planted during the programme year 2016-17. Planting was done at spacing of 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; x 6â&#x20AC;&#x2122; feet. The choice of species will be Shisham, Kikar, Tun, Arjan, Toot, Acacia Albida etc. and also according to the site conditions. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species can be planted. Status of Total No. of Planted Tree species during the year 2016-17 across all forests is as under:

Page | 25

Table 10 Total No. of Planted Species - Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Target No. Sr. Actual No. Target of Per Acre Difference Actual # Forest Name of Area Plants/Acre Difference %age %age Plants/Acre (Acres) as per PC-I Changa 1 Maanga 820 726 94 12.95% 112.95% 224 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Actual Target No. No. of of Plants Plants as per PC-l (Forest)

Plants Difference

183,680

162,624

21,056

Daphar

740

726

1.93%

101.93%

140

103,600

101,640

1,960

Chichawatni

817

726

12.53%

112.53%

298

243,466

216,348

27,118

Pirowal

680

726

-46

-6.34%

93.66%

101

68,680

73, 326

-4,646

Laal Suhanra

690

726

-36

-4.96%

95.04%

53,130

55,902

-2,772

Ladam Sir-ll Abbasia Plantation

665

726

-61

-8.40%

91.60%

105

69,825

76,230

-6,405

710

726

-16

-2.20%

97.80%

35,500

36,300

-800

Machu

685

726

-41

-5.65%

94.35%

47,265

50,094

-2,829

Inaayat

670

726

-56

-7.71%

92.29%

37,520

40,656

-3,136

1,119 842,666

813,120

29,097

Total

(Table 10) shows Changa Manga, Chichawatni are densely planted as Actual No. in percentage above 100%. Forests having more plantation than required revised PC-l, spacing size is seriously violated. Cost break up of expenditures per Acre for afforestation, approved for irrigated plantation (Annexure-VI) as per revised PC-I.

Page | 26

5. 2.1 Chichawatni Plantation Chichawatni Plantation is one of the major plantations in the Punjab. The total area of the plantation is 11531.70 Acres. The soil is fertile and canal water supply is available from LBDC, which runs along northern boundary of plantation. Although major part of the plantation contains good crop due to mesquite infestation and drying of Shisham crop due to Shisham Die Back. Part of the area of plantation (298 Acres) which was invaded by mesquite was included in the said scheme for rehabilitation/reclamation. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Chichawatni under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 11 Chichawatni Compartments and Total Area - GPP 2016-17 Circle

Division

Chichawatni Forest Multan Division

Sub Name Division Forest

Chichawatni Irrigated Plantation

Total

Total Cpt./RD/No. Area

2016-17

23-A

168

185

233

129

153

94 C

21-B

21-A

29 298

Page | 27

Plantation status of Chichawatni Forest is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 12 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Chichawatni Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name

Chichawatni Plantation

Actual No. Target No. Per Acre Difference Actual of of Difference %age %age Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 817

726

91 12.53%

112.53%

Total

Target Area (Acres)

298

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

243,466

216,348

27,118

243466

216,384

27,118

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 817 Nos. (Table 12) showing analysis of Per Acre positive difference of 91 Nos. of plants clearly projected 27,118 Nos. plants extra planted during 2016-17 across 298 acres. It was a serious violation of PC-I and would adversely impact the sustainability and benefits of the GPP.

Page | 28

Specie wise status of total number of plantations is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 13 Specie wise Plantation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Chichawatni Plantation

Not As per PC - I

Planted PC-I Species Species Kikar Kikar Toot Toot Arjan Ehretia Shisham Eucalyptus Tun Nim Acacia Albida Peepal Sumbal Frash Malaina Siris Lasoorah Total

Chichawatni Plantation Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Plants Per Acre) % age Acre) 25 28 3% 60 68 8% 54 61 7% 411 461 56% 21 24 3% 34 14 27 34 44 22 817

4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 3% 100%

29 13 24 29 39 21 726

Figure 5 Specie wise Plantation - Chichawatni Forest

Specie wise Plantatation - Chichawatni Forest Malaina 4%

Frash 3%

Lasoorah 3%

Toot 8%

Sumbal 2% Peepal 4% Kikar 3%

Siris 5%

Eucalyptus 57%

Nim 3% Ehretia 8%

(Table 13, Figure 05) clearly showing violation of Species to be planted under this component of GPP. Only Eucalyptus is 57%. Page | 29

Page | 30

Page | 31

5.2.2 Pirowal Plantation Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Machu & Inayat under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 14 Pirowal Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle Multan

Division Multan Div

Sub Division

Name of Forest Pirowal

Cpt./RD/No. 4/E 202/E 208

Total

Total Area 2016-17 44 34 23 23 56 44 101

Plantation status of Chichawatni Forest is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 15 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Pirowal Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Pirowal Plantation Total

Actual No. of Plants/Acre 680

Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I 726

Per Acre Difference Difference %age -46

-06.34%

Actual %age 93.66%

Target Area (Acres) 101 101

Actual No. Target No. of Plants of Plants (Forest) as per PC-l 68,680 73,326 68,680

73,326

Plants Difference -4,646 -4,646

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 680 Nos. (Table 15) showing analysis of Per Acre negative difference of (46) Nos. of plants clearly projected (4,646) Nos. Page | 32

Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 16 Specie wise Plantation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Pirowal Plantation

Not As per PC - I

Pirowal Plantation PC-I Species Kikar Shisham Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida

Planted Species Kikar Shisham Jaman Eucalyptus Siris

Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre) 105 15% 112 120 18% 128 115 17% 123 230 34% 246 110 16% 117

Total

680

100%

726

Figure 6 Specie wise Plantation - Pirowal

Specie wise Plantation - Pirowal

Shisham 18%

Siris 16%

Kikar 15% Eucalyptus 34% Jaman 17%

(Table 16, Figure 06) clearly showing violation of Species to be planted under this component of GPP. Only Eucalyptus is 34%.

Page | 33

Page | 34

5.2.3 Changa Maanga Plantation The Changa Maanga forest is the Largest planted forest in Pakistan. It is located in Chunian is about 70 km south of Lahore (also known as the Indus Plains of Punjab, Pakistan). It covers an area of 50 kmÂ˛ (12,510 acres) and is one of the largest of its kind. The planting and irrigation of it took place in the 19th century in the era of the British Raj to fill the need for timber and fuel resources for the North-Western railway networks. The most common species of flora are Dalbergia Sissoo (Shisham) and Acacia nilotica (Kikar), both members of the Fabaceae and native to the Indian subcontinent. Morus Alba (white mulberry) was also introduced to the plantation and became popular in cultivation throughout South Asia. The forest also has several species of Eucalyptus and Populus. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Changa Maanga under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 17 Changa Maanga Compartments and Total Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; GPP 2016-17

Circle

Division

Lahore Kasur Forest Forest Circle Division

Sub Division

Name of Forest Changa Manga Forest

Total

Cpt./RD/No.

Total Area

2016-17

187

57 224

Page | 35

Plantation status of Changa Maanga Forest is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 18 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Changa Maanga Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name

Changa Maanga Plantation Total

Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 820

726

Difference %age

Actual %age

12.95%

112.95%

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

224

183,680

162,624

21,056

224

183,680

162,624

21,056

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 820 Nos. (Table 18) showing analysis of Per Acre positive difference of 94 Nos. of plants clearly projected 21,056 Nos. plants extra planted during 2016-17 across 224 Acres. It was a serious violation of PC-I and would adversely impact the sustainability and benefits of the GPP.

Page | 36

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 19 Specie wise Plantation –Changa Maanga

Not As per PC - I

Changa Maanga PC-I Species Toot Shisham Tun Kikar Arjan Acacia Albida

Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Planted Species Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre) Toot 57 7% Shisham 47 6% Tun 29 3% Ehretia 163 20% Poplar 49 6% Eucalyptus 417 51% Jaman 58 7% Total 820 100%

Plants 50 42 27 144 43 369 51 726

Figure 7 Specie wise Plantation – Changa Maanga

Specie wise Palntation - Changa Maanga Jaman Tun 7% 3%

Toot 7% Shisham 6%

Ehretia 20%

Eucalyptus 51%

Poplar 6%

Page | 37

Page | 38

Page | 39

5.2.4 Daphar Plantation Daphar Irrigated Plantation is one of the premier plantations of the province. Total area of the plantation is 7212 acre and it is situated in the Northern Extremity at the intersection of latitude 32-26 North and Longitude 73-11 East. Daphar Irrigated Plantation is situated in Tehsil Malakwal of District Mandi Bahauddin and comes under the jurisdiction of Gujarat Forest Division. The Sub-Division Head Quarter is situated at Bangla Kathianwala, which is at a distance of 112 KM from Gujarat. Daphar Plantation was declared as Reserve Forest during 1921 vide notification No. 11232 dated 09-04-1921. The Plantation was started in 1918-19 under Working Scheme written by Mian Mushtaq Ahmed (I. F. S). Sowing Shisham Seed started it and Shisham Stumps in the beginning and Mulberry was introduced later. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Daphar under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 20 Daphar Compartments and Total Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; GPP 2016-17 Circle

Division Gujarat Forest Gujranwala Division

Sub Division

Name of Forest Daphar Irrigated Plantation

Total

Cpt./RD/No.

Total Area

201617

100

140

29 140

Page | 40

Plantation status of Daphar Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 21 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Daphar Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name

Daphar Plantation Total

Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 740

726

Difference %age

Actual %age

1.93%

103.93%

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

140

103,600

101,640

1,960

140

103,600

101, 640

1,960

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 740 Nos. (Table 21) showing analysis of Per Acre positive difference of 94 Nos. of plants clearly projected 21,056 Nos. plants extra planted during 2016-17 across 224 Acres. It was a serious violation of PC-I and would adversely impact the sustainability and benefits of the GPP.

Page | 41

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 22 Specie wise Plantation –Daphar Plantation

Not As per PC - I

Daphar Plantation

Species in PC-l

Species observed

Actual Count

% age

PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)

Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida Eucalyptus

740

100%

726

In problematic area Eucalyptus could be planted. But it’s all over planted here. Figure 8 Specie wise Plantation – Daphar Plantation

Specie wise Plantation - Daphar Plantation

Eucalyptus 100%

Page | 42

Page | 43

5.2.5 Machu & Inayat Plantation The objective behind creating Layyah Forest Division was to stabilize sand dunes and retrieve vast tract of land by growing Forest plantations spread over whole the tract. The gross area off Layyah Forest Division is 34701.51 with net as 17954.47 acres. The remaining area either consists of un-commanded and dunes or without vegetation. The Forests are not fully stocked with trees. The plantations are either dry or poorly managed due to less supply of irrigation water coupled with continuous scarcity of funds needed for their rehabilitation. Adequate quantity of water was provided through Inayat, Machu and Rajang Shah Canals from which these plantations were raised. The quantity of canal water available for the Forests reduced gradually and consequently, the Forests suffered adversely. The main source of canal water supply is from Thala Canal System. The approved water supply is @ 16 and 3.2 cusecs per 1000 acres for Kharif and Rabi respectively whereas it is being provided throughout the year 3.18 cusecs. Water shortage is the main problem of Plantation. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Machu & Inayat under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 23 Machu & Inayat Compartments and Total Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; GPP 2016-17 Sub Circle Division Division DG Khan

Layyah

Name of Total Forest Cpt./RD/No. Area 281 402 A Machu 402 B 375 265 102 Inayat 140 164 Total

2016-17 18 9 9 20 13 27 23 6 125

Page | 44

Plantation status of Machu Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 24 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Machu Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name

Machu Plantation Total

Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 685

726

-41

Difference %age

Actual %age

-5.65%

94.35%

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

47,265

50,094

-2,829

47,265

50,094

-2,829

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 685 Nos. (Table 24)

Page | 45

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 25 Specie wise Plantation â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Machu Plantation

Not As per PC - I

Machu Plantation Species in PC-l Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Shisham Kikar

Species observed Kikar Siris Eucalyptus Frash

Total

Actual PC-I (Nos. Plants Count % age Per Acre) 130 19% 138 290 43% 307 50 7% 53 215 31% 228

685

100%

726

Figure 9 Specie wise Plantation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Machu Plantation

Specie wise Plantation - Machu Plantation Eucalyptus 7%

Frash 32%

Siris 42%

Kikar 19%

Page | 46

Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 26 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Inaayat Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name

Inaayat Planation Total

Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 670

726

-56

Difference %age

Actual %age

-7.71%

92.29%

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

37,520

40,656

-3,136

37,520

40,656

-3,136

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 670 Nos. (Table 26)

Page | 47

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 27 Specie wise Plantation –Inayat Plantation

Not As per PC - I

Inayat Plantation

Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida

Species observed

Eucalyptus

Actual Count % age

670

100%

PC-I Plants Acre)

(Nos. Per

726

Figure 10 Specie wise Plantation – Inayat Plantation

Specie wise Plantation - Inayat Plantation

Eucalyptus 100%

Page | 48

Page | 49

5.2.6 Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation Laal Suhanra National Park is located in the southeastern Punjab of Pakistan with altitudes ranging from 125 to 140 meters. The flora of Park consists of 212 species belonging to 162 genera and 50 families. The Dicots having 41 families, 118 genera and 158 species, were the most diverse and dominating group of plants in this area followed by Monocots with 5 families, 40 genera and 50 species, Pteridophytes with 3 families, 3 genera and 3 species and Bryophytes represented by monotypic species. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 28 Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Compartments and Total Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; GPP 2016-17

Circle Bhawalpur

Division LSNP Div

Sub Division

Name Forest LSNP Div

Total

of Sub

Cpt. /RD/No.

Total Area

2016-17

223

819

19 77

Page | 50

Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 29 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name

Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation Total

Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 690

726

-36

Difference %age

Actual %age

-4.96%

95.04%

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

53,130

55,902

-2,772

53,130

55,902

-2,772

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 690 Nos. (Table 29)

Page | 51

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 30 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP)

Not As per PC - I

Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida

Species observed

Actual Count

Eucalyptus Frash

% age

630 60 690

Total

PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)

91% 9% 100%

661 65 726

Figure 11 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP)

Specie wise Plantation - Lal Suhnara National Park (LSNP) Frash 9%

Eucalyptus 91%

Page | 52

Page | 53

5.2.7 Ladam Sir-II Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Ladam Sir-II under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 31 Ladam Sir-II Compartments and Total Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; GPP 2016-17 Circle Bhawalpur

Sub Division Division Ladam Sir-ll

Name of Forest Ladam Sir-ll

Total

Total Cpt./RD/No. Area 813 814 842 846 847 848

50 50 50 50 50 50

2016-17 10 14 25 35 13 8 105

Page | 54

Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 32 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name

Ladam Sir-II Total

Actual No. of Plants/Acre

665

Target No. Per Acre of Difference Plants/Acre as per PC-I 726

-61

Difference %age

Actual %age

-8.40%

91.60%

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

105

53,130

55,902

-2,772

105

53,130

55,902

-2,772

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 665 Nos. (Table 32)

Page | 55

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 33 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II

Not As per PC - I

Ladam Sir-ll Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida

Species observed

Actual Count % age

Eucalyptus

665

PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)

100%

726

Figure 12 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II

Specie wise Plantation - Ladam Sir-II

Euclyptus 100%

Page | 56

5.2.8 Abbasia Plantation Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Abbasia Plantation under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 34 Abbasia Plantation Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle

Division

Bhawalpur

R. Y. Khan

Sub Division

Name of Forest Abbasia Plantation

Cpt./RD/No.

Total Area 83 84 94

2016-17 25 15 10 50

Total Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 35 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Abbasia Plantation Total

Actual No. of Target No. of Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 710 726

Per Acre Difference Difference %age -16

-2.20%

Actual %age 97.80%

Target Area Actual No. of (Acres) Plants (Forest) 50 35,500 50

35,300

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l 36,300 36,300

Plants Difference -800 -800

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 710 Nos. (Table 35)

Page | 57

As per PC - I

Status of specie wise plantation is as under: Table 36 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation – GPP 2016-17

Not As per PC - I

Abbasia Plantation Species in PC-l Kikar Shisham Arjan Toot Acacia Albida Tun

Species observed Kikar

Count % age Plants Per Acre 710 100% 726

Figure 13 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation

Specie wise Plantation - Abbasia Plantation

Kikar 100%

Page | 58

5.2.9 Major Weeds, Grazing & Trespassing, Poor Operation & Maintenance (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) Major species of weeds observed are as under:             

Boerhavia diffusa Calotropis procera Chenchruasspp Chenopodium album Conyza ambigua Cynodon dactylon Desmos stachia bipinata Imperata cyclindrica Parthenium hysterophorus Pseudo fruitcosa Saccharum munja Sporobolus spp Xanthium strumarium

Page | 59

Grazing, Tress pasing

Poor Operation & Maintainannce (Filled Trenches, Excessive Plantation)

Page | 60

5.3

Increase in existing cover of Bellas Forests

The Riverain or Bella Forests occur in varied sized patches along different rivers of the Punjab. Erratic flooding in rivers of Punjab and its tributaries has been a constant feature especially in the past decade or so. These flooding are the major cause of damages in the areas adjacent to this river primarily where the main source of livelihood is agriculture. The presence of plantations on the River banks greatly helps to reduce the impact of such flooding. Presently the existing Riparian Forests along Rivers and its tributaries are scanty & big chunks of state land are lying blank making the said areas more susceptible to soil degradation. In order to stabilize the land resource and to reduce the effects of flood water intrusion into the adjacent agricultural areas, these Riparian Forests require proper Afforestation/stocking. In Punjab, total area under Riverain Forests is 144,343 acres. An area of 1277 acres has been proposed for plantation under this scheme during the project period. Planting will be done at spacing of 10’ x 6’ feet. These Riverain Forests do not receive inundation frequently and subsurface water is 30’40’ feet deep. Planting was carried out at 10 ’x 6’ spacing (726 plants per acre) on Flow irrigation on standard Irrigated Plantation technique by pumping out the sub soil water with the help of peter pumps. One peter pump will irrigate at least an area of 25 Acres. At some places tube had also been installed to overcome the shortage of water.

Page | 61

The choice of species was Shisham, Kikar, Tun, Arjan, Toot etc. and also according to the site conditions. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species can be planted. Status of Total No. of Planted Tree species during the year 2016-17 across all forests is as under: Table 37 Total No. of Planted Species Increase in existing cover of Bella Forests Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests

Forest Name

Target No. of Actual No. of Plants/ Plants/Acre Acre as per PC-I

Bella Randiali

680

726

-46

-6.34%

93.66%

28,560

30,492

-1932

Bella Qadir Abad

667

726

-59

-8.13%

150

100,050

108,900

-8850

Dhool

734

726

1.10%

91.87% 101.10 %

49,912

49,368

544

Total

260

178,522

188,760

-10,238

Sr. #

Per Acre Difference

Difference %age

Actual %age

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

(Table 37) clearly shows plantation success ratio is above 90% but Difference of plantation against required number is of negative 10, 238. Although 2-3% restocking was observed in Bella Randiali and Bella Qadir Abad while Dhool forest showed 1% more plantations that recommended in PC-l and it had no need for restocking.

Page | 62

5.3.1 Bella Randiali Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Bella Randiali under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 38 Bella Randiali Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle

Division

Sub Division

Gujranwala Gujarat

Name of Forest Bella Randiali Total

Cpt./RD/No.

Total Area

2&3

2016-17 42 42

Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 39 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Randiali

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Bella Randiali Total

Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 680

726

-46

Difference %age

Actual %age

-6.34%

93.66%

Target Actual No. Area of Plants (Acres) (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

28, 560

30,492

-1.932

28,560

30,492

-1,932

In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 680 Nos. (Table 39) Page | 63

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 40 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali – GPP 2016-17

Not As per PC - I

Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan

Bella Randiali Actual PC-I (Nos. Plants Species observed Count % age Per Acre) Shisham 111 16% 119 Kikar 39 6% 42 Eucalyptus 259 38% 277 Siris 199 30% 212 Jaman 72 10% 77 Total 680 100% 726

Figure 14 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali

Specie wise Plantation - Bella Randiali

Kikar 6%

Jaman 10%

Eucalyptus 38%

Shisham 16%

Siris 30%

Page | 64

Page | 65

5.3.2 Bella Qadir Abad Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Abbasia Plantation under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 41 Bella Qadir Abad Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle Gujranwala

Division

Sub Division

Name of Forest

Cpt./RD/No.

Bella Qadir Abad

Gujarat

3 11 15

Total Area

2016-17

40 56 54

Total

40 56 54 150

Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:  

Per Acre Forest wise

Table 42 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Qadir Abad

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Bella Qadir Abad

Actual No. of Plants/Acre 667

Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I 726

Per Acre Difference -59

Difference Actual %age %age -8.13%

91.87%

Target Area Actual No. (Acres) of Plants (Forest) 150

100,050

Total 150 100,050 In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 667 Nos. (Table 42)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

108,900

-8.850

108,900

-8,850

Page | 66

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 43 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad – GPP 2016-17

Not As per PC - I

Bella Qadir Abad Species in PC-l Shisham

Species observed Eucalyptus

Kikar

Bottle Brush

Tun

% age

PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)

251

38%

273

193

29%

210

Meetha

15%

106

Arjan

Amrood

12%

Toot

Khoobani

667

100%

726

Total

Actual Count

Figure 15 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad

Specie wise Plantation - Bella Qadir Abad Khoobani 7%

Amrood 13%

Eucalyptus 37%

Meetha 14%

Bottle Brush 29%

Page | 67

Page | 68

5.3.3 Dhool Forest Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Dhool under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 44 Dhool Forest Compartments and Total Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; GPP 2016-17

Circle

Division

Gujranwala

Gujarat

Sub Division

Name Forest

Dhool Forest Total

Cpt./RD/No.

Total Area 163

2016-17 68 68

Page | 69

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 45 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest – GPP 2016-17

Not As per PC - I

Species in PC-l Kikar Arjan Shisham Tun Toot

Species observed Kikar Arjan Sukh Chain Eucalyptus Nim Amrood Amaltas Siris Pilkan

Dhool Forest Actual Count % age PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre) 38 6% 37 11 1% 10 10 1% 10 429 58% 421 101 14% 99 89 12% 87 41 5% 40 11 2% 12 10 1% 10 740 100% 726

Figure 16 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest

Specie wise Plantation - Dhool Forest Sukh Chain Kikar 1% 6%

Siris 2%

Arjan 1% Pilkan 1%

Amaltas 5%

Amrood 12%

Eucalyptus 58% Nim 14%

Page | 70

5.4

Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests

The scrub forests consisting of natural low yielding thorny vegetation occur in Pothwar area of Rawalpindi Civil Division and also in the low dry hills of Mianwali, Khushab and DG Khan Districts. Their importance from the soil and water conservation point of view can hardly be over emphasized. Moreover, these areas will improve productivity of Rangelands. Livelihood of adjoining population will improve through provision of developed grass lands with palatable grasses for grazing animals. In Punjab total area under scrub forests is 635,497 acres. Under this scheme 1514-acre area has been proposed to tackle in Attock, Chakwaal and Jhelum Forest Division. The species to be planted are Siris, Phulai, Kikar, Kahu, Robinia, Iple, Ailanthus, Jand, Ber, Frash etc. Planting had to be done at 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; x 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; spacing on dry afforestation techniques. 300 plants will be planted in Scrub Area along with seed sowing. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species can be planted. Status of Total No. of Planted Tree species during the year 2016-17 across all forests is as under: Table 46 Total No. of Planted Species Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests

Sr. Forest # Name 1

Target No. Actual No. of Per Acre of Plants/Acre Difference Plants/Acre as per PC-I

Kali Dali 230

300

-70

Difference Actual %age %age

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

-23.33%

100

23,000

30000

-7,000

100

23,000

30000

-7,000

76.67%

Plants Difference

Table 46 findings showed that there is negative difference of target plantation. In scrub forest, the success rate was observed 76.67% with restocking only 4-5%, which not fulfill the needs.

Page | 71

5.4.1 Kali Dali Kali Dili Reserve Forest is located in Kala Chita National Park on the southern aspect and in the west of Kala Chita Mountain Range. It is the forest in Kali Dili beat of Thatta Block in Jand Forest Range of Attock Forest Division. The forest comprises 15 compartments i.e. from 197-211 with a total area of 3738 acres. The tract of the area is very undulating and the soil is coarse and stony. The vegetation is sparsely scattered and mostly comprising of Acacia modesta, Acacia nilotica, Caparis aphylla etc. The average annual rainfall of the area is less than 250 mm. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Dhool under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 47 Kali Dali Compartments and Total Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; GPP 2016-17

Circle

Division

Rawalpindi

Attock

Sub Division

Name Forest

Kali Dili Total

of Cpt./RD/No.

Total Area

2016-17

206

239

207

206

80 100

Page | 72

Status of specie wise plantation is as under:

As per PC - I

Table 48 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali – GPP 2016-17

Not As per PC - I

Kali Dali Species in PC-l Phulai Kikar Siris Robinia Iple Ailanthus Jand Ber Frash

Actual Species observed Count % age Phulai 100 36% Kikar 50 18% Eucalyptus 130 46%

Total

280

PC-I Plants Acre)

100%

(Nos. Per 180 90 230

500

Figure 17 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali

Specie wise Plantation - Kali Dali Kikar 18%

Eucalyptus 46%

Phulai 36%

Mixed eucalypt–acacia plantations5 may be used in water-limited environments to produce a given amount of wood with less water than eucalypt monocultures.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112709005143

Page | 73

5.5

Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests

5.5.1 Coniferous (Protected) Forests The natural high hill Coniferous Forests grow 765 meters above sea level between 32º 6’ and 34º 1 North latitude and 72º 47 and 73º 42 East longitude. The average annual rainfall varies from 1.01 to 1.45 meters. The forests areas are situated in Murree, Kahuta and Kotli Sattian Tehsils of Rawalpindi. These forests are the only source of soft wood supply in the province. These forests also provide recreational facilities. In Punjab total area under coniferous forests is 171,000 acres. Under this scheme 2468-acre area will be tackled in Murree Forest Division and North Forest Division. 50 No. big plants per acre will be planted along with seed sowing. The species to be planted are Chir, Kail, Fir, Horse Chest Nut, Amlok, Robinia, Ailanthus, Poplus ciliate, fig, willow, chinar, Quercus incana, Quercus Ilex, Tun etc. Status of Total No. of Pinus Planted during the year 2016-17 across Muree Forest Ranges is as under:

Murree Forest Range

Table 49 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Murree Forest Range

Forest Name Gohi Patriata Hokeria Ker Aucha Dewal

Target No. of Target Actual No. Actual No. of Per Acre Difference Actual Plants/Acr Area of Plants Plants/Acre Difference %age %age e as per PC(Acres) (Forest) I 47 50 -3 -6.00% 94.00% 70 3,290 46 50 -4 -8.00% 92.00% 50 2,300 48 47 45

50 50 50

-2 -3 -5

-4.00% -6.00% -10.00%

96.00% 94.00% 90.00%

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

Plants Difference

3,500 2,500

-210 -200

50 50 50

2,400 2,350 2,250

2,500 2,500 2,500

-100 -150 -250

270

12,590

13,500

-910

Page | 74

Status of forest range wise pinus plantation is as under: Table 50 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range – GPP 2016-17

Forest Gohi Hokeria Patriata Aucha Dewal

Pinus Plantation Murree Forest Range Actual Count % age PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Forest) 3,290 20% 3,500 2,400 21% 2,500 2,300 20% 2,500 2,350 20% 2,500 2,250 19% 2,500 12,590 100% 13,500

Figure 18 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range

Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation - Murree Forest Range Dewal 19% Gohi 20%

Aucha 20% Hokeria 21% Patriata 20%

Page | 75

Status of Total No. of Pinus Plantation during the year 2016-17 across Rawalpindi Forest Ranges is as under:

Rawalpindi Forest Range

Table 51 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Rawalpindi Forest Range Forest Name

Actual No. of Plants/ Acre

Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I

Per Acre Difference

Difference %age

Hanaser

-1

-2.00%

Chonoyan

-3

-6.00%

Khanawas

-5

-10.00%

Actual %age 98.00 % 94.00 % 90.00 %

Target Area (Acres)

Actual No. of Plants (Forest)

Target No. of Plants as per PC-l

100

4,900

5,000

-100

100

4,700

5,000

-300

100

4,500

5,000

-500

300

14,100

15,000

-900

Plants Difference

No restocking was observed in all the forest in coniferous forest.

Page | 76

Status of forest wise pinus plantation is as under: Table 52 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range – GPP 2016-17

Forest Hanaser Chonoyan Khanawas

Pinus Rawalpindi Forest Range Actual Count % age PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Forest) 4,900 35% 4,900 4,700 33% 4,700 4,500 32% 4.500 14.100 100% 14,100

Figure 19 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range

Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation - Rawalpinidi Forest Range

Khanawas 32%

Hanaser 35%

Chonoyan 33%

5.5.2 Guzara Forests The natural high hill Coniferous Forests grow 765 meters above sea level between 32º 6’ and 34º 1 North latitude and 72º 47 and 73º 42 East longitude. The average annual rainfall varies from 1.01 to 1.45 meters. The forests areas are situated in Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta Tehsils of Rawalpindi. These forests are the only source of soft wood supply in the province. These forests also provide recreational facilities. Under this scheme 200 were tackled. The species planted were Chir, Kail, Horse Chest Nut, Amlok, Robinia, Ailanthus, Poplus ciliate, fig, Quercus incana, Quercus Ilex, Tun and fruit plants etc. As plantation was through land lords of (Maliki land Shamlat) so team visited and verified physically across all areas. Although documentation need serious improvements but it was overall satisfactory. As to sensitize and engage communities for afforestation was comparatively a little difficult task.

Page | 77

5. 6 Protection

and

Augmentation

dry

temperature

forests

(Pothwar) The Range Lands / scrub forests consisting of natural low yielding thorny vegetation occur in Pothwar area of Rawalpindi Civil Division and in the low dry hills of Mianwali, Khushab and DG Khan Districts. Their importance from the soil and water conservation point of view can hardly be over emphasized. Moreover, these areas also improve productivity of Rangelands. Livelihood of adjoining population also l improves through provision of developed grasslands with palatable grasses for grazing animals. An area of 7322 acres to be planted during the programme period in in Pothwar track and GPP 2016-17 targets was only 100 acres. The species to be planted are Siris, Phulai, Kikar, Kahu, Robinia, Iple, Ailanthus, Jand, Ber, Frash & other Acacia species. Planting had to be done at 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; x 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; spacing on dry afforestation techniques. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species could be planted. Although plantation was observed both spacing size and specie selection were violated and needs serious monitoring.

Page | 78

5-A-II Height and Diameter Analysis of Planted Species I order to study the effects of plantation space size and time of harvesting plant height and diameter of every planted specie were recoded. For data analysis purpose, Average and Variance of both height and diameter were processed through ANOVA Single Factor Tool. Component and specie wise “maximum” and “minimum” data is as under:  

Height & Diameter Analysis Specie wise Height & Diameter Analysis under each component

Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Rehabilitation & Restocking of Historical Plantation” are as under: Table 53 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) Height (m) Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Toot Siris Ehretia Frash Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim Poplar Tun Jaamun

Forest Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Inaayat Changa Maanga Machu Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Changa Maanga Changa Maanga Changa Maanga

Maximum Height (m) 7.62 3.96 3.66 4.88 4.11 2.68 3.66 2.46 4.57 3.99 3.66 2.13 1.22 1.68

Forest Name Ladam Sir-ll Machu Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Laal Suhanra Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Changa Maanga Changa Maanga Changa Maanga

Minimum Height (m) 1.74 1.52 1.75 1.45 2.44 1.68 1.46 2.44 3.09 3.96 2.13 1.53 0.91 1.22

Page | 79

Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Rehabilitation & Restocking of Historical Plantation” are as under: Table 54 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation)

Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Toot Siris Erethiya Frash Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim Poplar Tun Jaamun

Forest Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Inaayat Changa Maanga Machu Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Changa Maanga Changa Maanga Changa Maanga

Diameter (cm) Maximum Diameter (cm) Forest 6.1 Changa Maanga 3.77 Chichawatni 3.43 Chichawatni 4.06 Chichawatni 3.54 Chichawatni 2.97 Laal Suhanra 3.67 Chichawatni 2.85 Chichawatni 6.75 Chichawatni 2.95 Chichawatni 3.09 Chichawatni 2.21 Changa Maanga 0.76 Changa Maanga 1.47 Changa Maanga

Minimum Diameter (cm) 0.58 0.94 0.9 0.62 2.12 1.3 0.56 2.56 2.06 2.93 2.51 1.55 0.73 0.97

Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests” are as under: Table 55 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests) Height (m) Specie Eucalyptus Meetha Amrood Khoobani Bottle Brush Nim

Forest Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool Bella Qadir Abad

Maximum Height (m) 4.27 1.22 1.68 1.37

Forest Name Dhool Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad

Minimum Height (m) 1.43 1.07 1.22 1.04

Bella Qadir Abad Dhool

1.55 1.74

Bella Qadir Abad Dhool

1.34 1.65

Page | 80

Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Rehabilitation & Restocking of Historical Plantation” are as under: Table 56 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests) Diameter (cm) Specie Eucalyptus Meetha Amrood Khoobani Bottle Brush Nim

Forest Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool

Maximum Diameter (cm) 3.98 0.87 1.09 1.14 1.1 1.95

Forest Name Dhool Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool

Minimum Diameter (cm) 0.3 0.63 0.8 0.59 0.83 1.28

Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests” are as under: Table 57 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests) Height (m) Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai

Forest Kali Dali Kali Dali Kali Dali

Maximum Height (m) 3.66 1.84 0.62

Forest Name Kali Dali Kali Dali Kali Dali

Minimum Height (m) 0.61 1.83 0.61

Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests” are as under: Table 58 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests)

Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai

Forest Kali Dali Kali Dali Kali Dali

Diameter (cm) Maximum Diameter (cm) Forest 2.36 Kali Dali 1.24 Kali Dali 0.87 Kali Dali

Minimum Diameter (cm) 0.68 1.23 0.86

Page | 81

Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests” are as under: Table 59 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests) Height (m) Specie Forest Maximum Height (m) Forest Pinus Hanaser 1.83 Hokeria Ker

Minimum Height (m) 0.67

Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests” are as under: Table 60 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests) Diameter (cm) Specie Forest Maximum Height (m) Forest Pinus Hanaser 3.98 Hokeria Ker

Minimum Height (m) 0.74

Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Road and Canal side Plantation” are as under: Table 61 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) Height (m) Plant Eucalyptus Kikar Shisham

Forest Maximum Height (m) Mian Wali 3.96 Bhakhar 3.05 Bhakhar 3.05

Forest Minimum Height (m) Mian Wali 2.74 Bhakhar 1.52 Bhakhar 2.74

Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Road and Canal side Plantation” are as under: Table 62 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) Diameter (cm) Plant Eucalyptus Kikar Shisham

Forest Maximum Height (m) Mian Wali 3.55 Bhakhar 4.67 Bhakhar 2.71

Forest Minimum Height (m) Mian Wali 1.35 Bhakhar 2.28 Bhakhar 2.06

Page | 82

5.1

Road side and Canal side Plantation

Specie wise analysis of Average and Variance findings through ANOVA Single Factor for all observed and recoded species of this component is as under: Table 63 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count

Average

18 10

2.233 2.843

Kikar Shisham

Variance

Min

Max

0.593 0.032

1.52 2.74

3.05 3.05

0.77022 0.17898

Greater Less than than 6 12 3 7

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.252444722 Groups Figure 20 Height Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo)

Kikar, Shisham 3.500 3.000

Height (m)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 Average

2.233

2.843

Page | 83

Table 64Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Average SD

Kikar

Sample Count 18

3.26

1.25168 1.5667

2.28

4.67

Shisham

2.46

0.35

2.06

2.71

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Variance Min

0.1225

Max

Greater than

Less than

of P-value 0.346439715

Figure 21 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia Sissoo)

Kikar, Shisham 4 3.5

Diameter (cm)

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Series1

Kikar 3.26

Shisham 2.46

Page | 84

5.2

Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation

Specie wise analysis of Average and Variance findings through ANOVA Single Factor for all observed and recoded species of this component is as under: 5.2.1 Eucalyptus ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 65 Height of Eucalyptus Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count

Average

Variance Min

Max

Greater Less than than

Changa Maanga

125

5.4663

0.5723

0.3275

4.57

6.25

Daphar

444

4.6315

0.6708

0.4500

3.35

5.79

222

Chichawatni

415

5.2140

1.2594

1.5862

2.44

7.62

221

194

Pirowal

2.6650

0.2616

0.0685

2.48

2.85

Laal Suhanra

5.0800

0.4681

0.2191

4.57

5.49

Ladam Sir-ll

133

2.6920

0.5478

0.3001

1.74

3.05

106

Machu

3.6575

0.6231

0.3882

3.08

4.45

Innayat

3.7025

0.6995

0.4893

3.05

4.57

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

of P-value

0.0000002

Page | 85

Figure 22 Height of Eucalyptus

Eucalyptus 7.0000 6.0000

Height (m)

5.0000 4.0000 3.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.0000

Changa Maanga Average 5.4663

Daphar 4.6315

Chichaw Pirowal atni 5.2140 2.6650

Laal Suhanra 5.0800

Ladam Sir-ll 2.6920

Machu

Innayat

3.6575

3.7025

The analysis of Eucalyptus average height data (Table 65, Figure 22) across different forest underâ&#x20AC;? Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantationâ&#x20AC;? shows that it was maximum in Changa Maanga, while minimum in Ladam Sir-II. Machu and Inaayat showed similar while Daphar, Chichawatni and Laal Suhanra had almost similar trend in height. Uncertain and high variation in height variance (Table 65) especially in Chichawatni clearly points out flaws in work plan, earthen work, weed management, trenches development as well as irrigation. Theses flaws may cause the damage and reduction in the growth and even slow down the growth of the plants.

Page | 86

ï&#x201A;·

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 66 Diameter of Eucalypts Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Changa Maanga Daphar Chichawatni Pirowal Laal Suhanra Ladam Sir-ll Machu Innayat

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Sample Count 125

Average

Variance Min

3.5150

1.3970 1.9516

Greater Less than than 0.58 5.2000 47 78

444 415 46 63 133 10 67

3.3815 4.1227 1.6700 3.4033 2.5050 3.3950 3.4150

0.5336 1.6306 0.2970 0.8491 0.7811 0.5200 0.5639

2.50 1.36 1.46 2.47 1.77 2.98 2.96

0.2743 2.6589 0.0882 0.7209 0.6102 0.2704 0.3180

Max

4.4900 6.1000 1.8800 4.1300 3.5400 4.1500 4.2300

239 235 23 42 53 3 17

205 208 23 21 80 8 50

of P-value 0.03719

Page | 87

Figure 23 Diameter of Eucalyptus

Eucalyptus 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000

Diameter (cm)

3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000

Changa Maanga Average 3.5150

Daphar 3.3815

Chichaw atni 4.1227

Pirowal 1.6700

Laal Suhanra 3.4033

Ladam Sir-ll 2.5050

Machu

Innayat

3.3950

3.4150

The analysis of Eucalyptus average diameter data (Table 66, Figure 23) shows that it was maximum in Chichawatni followed by Changa Manga and Daphar. The minimum diameter was recorded for the Pirowal. Laal Suhanra, Ladam Sir-II, Machu and Inaayat shows almost same trend of diameter growth. The growth of diameter of the plants is primarily controlled by temperature and nutrients available. Uncertain and high variation in diameter variance data (Table 66) especially in Chichawatni and Changa Manga points out flaws in site selection, earthen work and weed management. Theses flaws may cause the damage and reduction in the growth and even slow down the growth of the plants. No plan was found regarding insect and disease management.

Page | 88

5.2.2 Kikar (Acacia nilotica) ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height and diameter of Kikar is discussed as under: Table 67 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Abbasia Plantation Pirowal

Sample Count

Average SD

Variance Min

25 26 71

3.6180 1.6500 2.5920

0.2060 0.1179 0.4605

0.0424 0.0139 0.2121

3.29 1.52 1.83

2.1750

0.4879

0.2381

1.83

Max 3.96 1.75 3.66

Greater than 12.5 17.3 28.4

Less than 12.5 8.7 42.6

2.52

10.5

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.000000047 Groups Figure 24 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica)

Height (m)

Kikar (Acacia nilotica) 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Chichawatni

Machu

3.6180

1.6500

Abbasia Plantation 2.5920

Pirowal 2.1750

Page | 89

Kikar (Acacia nilotica) plantation recorded in Chichawatni, Machu, Abbasia plantation and Pirowal. The analysis of average height data (Table 67, Figure 24) shows that it was maximum in Chichawatni, followed by Abbasia Plantation, Pirowal and minimum in Machu. Slight variation in height variance (Table 67) was observed. It indicates suitable selection of the specie. ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) is discussed as under: Table 68 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Abbasia Plantation Pirowal

Sample Count 25 26 71

Average SD

Variance Min

Max 3.77 2.97 2.36

Greater than 5 17 36

Less than 20 9 36

1.4800 2.7267 1.9330

0.8384 0.3232 0.2798

0.7030 0.1044 0.0783

0.94 2.36 1.42

2.5700

0.5091

0.2592

2.21

2.93

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0149 Figure 25 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica)

Acacia nilotica 3.5000 Diameter (cm)

3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Chichawatni

Machu

1.4800

2.7267

Abbasia Plantation 1.9330

Pirowal 2.5700

Page | 90

The analysis of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) average diameter data (Table 68, Figure 25) shows that it was maximum in Machu and minimum in Chichawatni. High variation in diameter variance data (Table 68) was noted in Chichawatni followed by Pirowal, Machu and minimum in Abbasia Plantation. As growth of diameter is primarily controlled by temperature and nutrients available, so these findings indicate flaws in site selection, earthen work and poorly managed weeds and irrigation. 5.2.3 Toot (Morus alba) ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Toot (Morus alba) is discussed as under: Table 69 Height of Toot (Morus alba) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count 61 17

Chichawatni Changa Maanga ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Average SD

Variance

Min

Max

2.7636 2.1700

0.3405 0.1594

1.75 1.83

3.66 2.74

0.5836 0.3992

Greater than 28 4

Less than 33 13

of P-value 0.0856

Figure 26 Height of Toot (Morus alba)

Height (m)

Toot 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Chichawatni

Changa Maanga

2.7636

2.1700

Page | 91

Toot (Morus Alba) was planted only in Chichawatni and Changa Maanga. (Table 69, Figure 26) shows that it was high in Changa Maanga and low in Chichawatni. But High variation was observed in Chichawatni mainly due to the factors i.e. unsmooth earthen work, poor weed management and irregular plantation. ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Toot (Morus alba) is discussed as under: Table 70 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba) Anova: Factor

Single

SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Changa Maanga ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Sample Count 61 17

Average

Variance Min

2.3127 2.2700

0.7937 0.3023

0.6299 0.0914

Max

0.9 3.43 2.07 2.72

Greater than 33 4

Less than 28 13

of P-value 0.9196

Figure 27 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba)

Diameter (cm)

Toot 2.3600 2.3400 2.3200 2.3000 2.2800 2.2600 2.2400 2.2200 2.2000 Average

Chichawatni

Changa Maanga

2.3127

2.2700

The analysis of Toot (Morus Alba) average diameter data (Table 70, Figure 27) shows that it is high in Chichawatni as compared to Changa Maanga. It might be due dense, irregular

Page | 92

plantation and poor weeds management in Changa Maanga. It also highlights more competition for nutrients among plants and the weeds in Changa Maanga than Chichawatni. 5.2.4 Siris (Albizzia lebbek) ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Siris (Albizza lebbek) is discussed as under: Table 71 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Pirowal

Sample Count 40 58 22

Average

Variance

Min

Max

1.9133 4.0300 3.4133

0.4980 0.7061 0.4197

0.2480 0.4986 0.1761

1.45 3.35 2.94

2.44 4.88 3.74

Greater than 13 29 15

Less than 27 29 7

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0058

Figure 28 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek)

Height (m)

Siris (Albizza lebbek) 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000

Average

Chichawatni 1.9133

Inaayat 4.0300

Pirowal 3.4133

The Siris (Albizzia lebbek) plantation was only in Chichawatni, Inaayat and Pirowal. The analysis of average height data (Table 71, Figure 28) shows that it was maximum in Inaayat followed by Pirowal and minimum in Chichawatni. Slight variation in height variance (Table 71) was observed. It indicates suitable selection of the specie. Page | 93

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) is discussed as under: Table 72 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count 40 58 22

Chichawatni Machu Pirowal

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Average SD

Variance

Min

Max

0.8967 3.5325 3.2500

0.0994 0.2652 0.1183

0.62 2.86 2.87

1.24 4.06 3.54

0.3153 0.5149 0.3439

Greater than 13 29 15

Less than 27 29 7

of P-value 0.0002

Figure 29 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek)

Siris (Albizza lebbek) 5.0000

Diameter (cm)

4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000

Average

Chichawatni 0.8967

Inaayat 3.5325

Pirowal 3.2500

Regarding the analysis of Siris (Albizzia lebbek) average diameter data (Table 72, Figure 29) it is found maximum in Inaayat and minimum in Chichawatni. Slight variation in diameter variance (Table 72) was observed in Inaayat due to presence of weeds although managed but not properly. No plan was also found regarding insect and disease management.

Page | 94

5. 2.5 Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) is discussed as under: Table 73 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Changa Maanga

Sample Count 55 49

Average

Variance

Min

Max

2.7450 3.4780

0.4313 0.5159

0.1860 0.2662

2.44 3.05

3.05 4.11

Greater than 28 20

Less than 28 29

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.1402

Figure 30 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis)

Ehretia 4.5000 4.0000

Height (m)

3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Chichawatni

Changa Maanga

2.7450

3.4780

Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) was planted in Chichawatni and Changa Maanga only. Regarding the analysis of height data (Table 73, Figure 30) it was comparatively more in Changa Maanga as compare to Chichawatni. The variation in the variance of was also greater in Changa Maanga (Table 73). It points out flaws in work plan, earthen work, weed management and trenches development.

Page | 95

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) is discussed as under: Table 74 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count 55 49

Chichawatni Changa Maanga ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Average

Variance Min

2.2700 3.0540

0.2121 0.0450 0.4804 0.2308

2.12 2.36

Max 2.42 3.54

Greater than 28 20

of P-value 0.0865

Figure 31 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis)

Ehretia 4.0000

Diameter (cm)

3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Chichawatni

Changa Maanga

2.2700

3.0540

The analysis of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) average diameter data (Table 74, Figure 31) shows that it had high value in Changa Maanga as compare to Chichawatni. Analysis of data sows more symmetrical diameter in Chichawatni though it is less in Changa Maanga.

Page | 96

Less than 28 29

5.2.6 Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ï&#x201A;·

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) is discussed as under: Table 75 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count 24 43 6

Chichawatni Machu Laal Suhanra

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Average SD 2.1375 2.5633 1.7150

Variance Min

0.0105 0.0001 0.1069 0.0114 0.0495 0.0025

2.13 2.47 1.68

Max 2.14 2.68 1.75

Greater than 12 14 3

Less than 12 29 3

of P-value 0.0008

Figure 32 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla)

Frash 3.0000

Height (m)

2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Chichawatni

Machu

Laal Suhanra

2.1375

2.5633

1.7150

Frash (Tamarix aphylla) plantation was observed in Chichawatni, Machu and Laal Suhanra. The analysis of average height data (Table 75, Figure 32) shows that it was maximum in Machu and minimum in Laal Suhanra. Slight variation in height variance (Table 75) was observed. It indicates suitable selection of the specie.

Page | 97

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) discussed as under: Table 76 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Laal Suhanra

Sample Count 24 43 6

Average

Variance

Min

Max

1.4766 2.3100 1.3150

0.0094 0.5717 0.0212

0.0001 0.3268 0.0005

1.47 1.97 1.30

1.48 2.97 1.33

Greater than 12 14 3

Less than 12 29 3

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0958

Figure 33 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla)

Frash 3.0000

Diameter (cm)

2.5000 2.0000

1.5000 1.0000 0.5000

0.0000 Average

Chichawatni 1.4766

Machu 2.3100

Laal Suhanra 1.3150

Considering the diameter of the Frash it is also high in Machu and minimum in Laal Suhanra while Chichawatni has intermediate value of the diameter showing medium growth. (Figure 33) In Machu diameter showed same variation. (Table 76)

Page | 98

5.2.7 Mix Plantation Some species observed only in specific compartments of Chichawatni forest. Although both height and diameter were calculated and recorded but analysis of variation in variance of height/diameter for similar specie is as under. ď&#x201A;ˇ

Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim

Table 77 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count 13 30 30 20 22

Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim

Average

Variance Min

Max

2.5450 2.4492 3.6675 3.9749 2.8950

0.7727 0.0129 0.6452 0.0210 1.0819

0.5970 0.0002 0.4163 0.0004 1.1705

3.66 2.46 4.57 3.99 3.66

1.46 2.44 3.09 3.96 2.13

Greater than 7 15 8 10 11

Less than 7 15 23 10 11

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0783 Figure 34 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim

Height (m)

Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Sumbal 2.5450

Peepal 2.4492

Malaina 3.6675

Lasoorah 3.9749

Nim 2.8950

Page | 99

Sumbal (Salmalia malabarica), Peepal (Ficus religiosa linn), Malaina (Gemlina arborea), Lasoorah (Cordia myxa) and Nim (Azadirachta indica) were planted only in Chichawatni. Nim (Azadirachta indica) (Table 77, Figure 34) showed maximum variation in variance of height followed by Sumbal (Salmalia malabarica) and Peepal (Ficus religiosa linn) minimum. It points out flaws in work plan, earthen work, weed management and trenches development for the plantation of said specie. Table 78 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count 13 30 30 20 22

Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim

Average

Variance

Min

Max

2.4050 2.5677 3.6886 2.9388 2.8000

1.2212 0.0109 1.7870 0.0124 0.4101

1.4914 0.0001 3.1933 0.0002 0.1682

0.56 2.56 2.06 2.93 2.51

3.67 2.58 6.75 2.95 3.09

Greater than 7 15 13 10 11

Less than 6 15 17 10 11

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.5616 Figure 35 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim

Diameeter (cm)

Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000

Average

Sumbal 2.4050

Peepal 2.5677

Malaina 3.6886

Lasoorah 2.9388

Nim 2.8000

Regarding the analysis of variation in variance of diameter of above discussed species. Malaina (Gemlina arborea) had maximum value followed by Sumbal (Salmalia malabarica) and Peepal (Ficus religiosa linn) minimum (Table 78, Figure 35). It highlights flaws mainly in site selection and weed management. Page | 100

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Poplar, Tun, and Jaman discussed as under: Table 79 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count 15 8 18

Poplar Tun Jaman

Average

Variance

1.7900 1.0650 1.4500

0.2596 0.0674 0.2192 0.0481 0.3253 0.1058

Min

Max

1.52 0.91 1.22

2.13 1.22 1.68

Greater than 8 4 9

Less than 8 4 9

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0637 Figure 36 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman

Poplar, Tun, Jaman 2.5000

Height (m)

2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000

Average

Poplar 1.7900

Tun 1.0650

Jaman 1.4500

Poplar (Populous euramericana), Tun (Cedrela toona) and Jaamun (Syzgygum cumini) were observed only in Changa Maanga forest. Among them Jaamun (Syzgygum cumini) showed maximum variation in variance of height and minimum in Tun (Cedrela toona). Very less variation in height indicates smooth growth.

Page | 101

5.3

Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests

There are three Bella forests (Bella Randiali, Bella Qadir Abad and Dhool) where plantation done under GPP 2016-17 and eucalyptus planted in all the three forests Bella Randiali, Bella Qadir Abad and Dhool. Specie wise analysis of Average and Variance findings through ANOVA Single Factor for all observed and recoded species of this component is as under: 5.3.1 Eucalyptus ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 80 Height of Eucalyptus Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count Bella Randiali 26 Bella Qadir 75 Abad Dhool 43

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Average

Variance Min

Max 2.22 4.27

Greater than 10 56

Less than 16 19

1.7240 3.4900

0.3020 0.9789

0.0912 0.9582

1.43 2.07

1.6167

0.1644

0.0270

1.43

1.74

of P-value 0.0030

Page | 102

Figure 37 Height of Eucalyptus

Height (m)

Eucalyptus 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Bella Randiali 1.7240

Bella Qadir Abad 3.4900

Dhool 1.6167

Eucalyptus planted in all the three Bella forests. The analysis of average height data (Table 80, Figure 37) shows that it was maximum in Bella Qadir Abad followed by Bella Randiali while minimum in Dhool. Analysis of the data describes high variation in height variance, it is maximum in Bella Qadir Abad and minimum in Dhool, it points out flaws in work plan, earthen work and trenches development.

Page | 103

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 81 Diameter of Eucalyptus Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count Bella Randiali 26 Bella Qadir 75 Abad Dhool 43

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Average

Variance Min

Max 1.22 3.14

Greater than 5 38

Less than 21 38

0.6840 2.3483

0.3088 0.6179

0.0954 0.3818

0.47 1.39

0.5550

0.2318

0.0537

0.30

0.89

of P-value 0.0000059

Figure 38 Diameter of Eucalyptus

Eucalyptus 3.5000

Diameter (cm)

3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 -0.5000 Average

Bella Randiali

Bella Qadir Abad

Dhool

0.6840

2.3483

0.5550

The analysis of average diameter data (Table 81, Figure 38) shows that it was maximum in Bella Qadir Abad followed by Bella Randiali and minimum is in Dhool. It shows improper weed management, poor irrigation and no planning regarding insect and disease management.

Page | 104

5.3.2 Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani discussed as under: Table 82 Height of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count Average SD

Variance

Min

Max

Bottle Brush Meetha Amrood Khoobani

58 29 25 13

0.0129 0.0057 0.0001 0.0545

1.07 1.22 1.04 1.34

1.22 1.24 1.37 1.55

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

1.4700 1.1400 1.2267 1.2050

0.0755 0.0115 0.2333 0.1136

Greater than 39 10 8 7

of P-value 0.0424

Figure 39 Height of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani

Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani 1.8000 1.6000

Height (m)

1.4000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000 Average

Bottle Brush

Meetha

Amrood

Khoobani

1.4700

1.1400

1.2267

1.2050

Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani were observed only in Bella Qadir Abad. The analysis of height and the variance data (Table 82, Figure 39) showed bottlebrush had maximum height while minimum height was observed of Meetha. Amrood and Khoobani exhibit almost same height. Khoobnai plants showed little bit variation while other had symmetry in height.

Page | 105

Less than 19 19 17 6

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani discussed as under: Table 83 Diameter of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Average

Variance

Min

Max

Bottle Brush

Sample Count 58

0.87

Greater than 19

Less than 39

0.9633

0.1308

0.0182

0.63

Meetha Amrood Khoobani

29 25 13

0.7200 0.8533 0.8650

0.0473 0.3889 0.1350

0.0171 0.0022 0.1513

0.80 0.59 0.83

0.89 1.14 1.10

10 17 7

19 8 7

Source Variation Between Groups

of P-value 0.4772

Figure 40 Diameter of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani

Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani 1.2000

Diameter (cm)

1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000

Average

Bottle Brush 0.9633

Meetha 0.7200

Amrood 0.8533

Khoobani 0.8650

The analysis of diameter and the variance data (Table 83, Figure 40) showed Bottlebrush had maximum and minimum noted for Meetha, Amrood and Khoobnai exhibit same diameter. But Khoobani showed much variation in the diameter than all the other plants. It highlights flaws mainly in site selection and weed management.

Page | 106

5.3.3 Amrood, Nim ï&#x201A;·

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Amrood, Nim discussed as under: Table 84 Height of Amrood, Nim Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Amrood Nim

ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups

Sample Count 9 10

Average

Variance Min

1.6000 1.6800

0.0850 0.0128 0.0520 0.0027

Max

1.52 1.68 1.65 1.74

Greater than 6 3

Less than 3 7

of P-value 0.3424

Figure 41 Height of Amrood, Nim

Amrood, Nim 1.7500

Height (m)

1.7000 1.6500 1.6000 1.5500 1.5000 1.4500

Average

Amrood 1.6000

Nim 1.6800

Page | 107

ï&#x201A;·

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Amrood, Nim discussed as under: Table 85 Diameter of Amrood, Nim SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count Average SD

Variance Min

Max

Amrood Nim

9 10

0.0128 0.0027

1.09 1.95

0.9800 1.7100

0.1980 0.3707

0.81 1.28

Greater than 6 7

Less than 3 3

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.3424 Groups Figure 42 Diameter of Amrood, Nim

Amrood, Nim 1.7500

Diameter (cm)

1.7000 1.6500 1.6000 1.5500 1.5000 1.4500

Average

Amrood 1.6000

Nim 1.6800

Page | 108

5.4

Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests

The scrub forest is famous for Kikar and pholai but eucalyptus also planted under GPP 2016-17. 5.4.1 Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai ï&#x201A;·

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai discussed as under: Table 86 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups

Sample Count

Average SD

Variance

Min

Max

Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai

13 10 5

2.2100 1.8325 0.6109

1.6959 0.0000 0.0000

0.61 1.83 0.61

3.66 1.84 0.61

1.3023 0.0035 0.0013

Greater than 7 5 3

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.2745 Groups

Figure 43 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar Phulai

Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai 3.0000

Height (m)

2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average

Eucalyptus

Kikar

Phulai

2.2100

1.8325

0.6109

Page | 109

Less than 6 5 2

The analysis of height and variance data (Table 86, Figure 43) shows eucalyptus has maximum height followed by Kikar and Phulai. Variation of variance clearly indicates that eucalyptus has much variation in height while the other both plants indicate smoothness in the height. It indicates flaws in site selection and suitability of the specie ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai discussed as under: Table 87 Diameter of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai

Sample Count 13 10 5

Average

Variance Min

Max

1.5325 1.2337 0.8626

0.8851 0.0052 0.0036

0.7834 0.0000 0.0000

2.36 1.24 0.87

0.68 1.23 0.86

Greater than 7 5 3

Less than 7 5 3

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.5631 Groups Figure 44 Diameter of Poplar, Tun Jaman

Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai Diameter (cm)

2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000

Average

Eucalyptus 1.5325

Kikar 1.2337

Phulai 0.8626

The analysis of diameter and variance data (Table 87, Figure 44) shows that pattern of growth of the diameter is also similar to height. It is maximum in eucalyptus minimum in phulai while Kikar is intermediate. Again, the diameter of the eucalyptus showed very much variation and indicating the poor earthen work, distribution of the nutrients in soil is uneven which effect the growth. Page | 110

5.5

Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests

Pine was the only specie planted in coniferous (protected) forests under GPP 2016-17. A detailed analysis of height and diameter along with variance discussed as under: 5.5.1 Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ď&#x201A;ˇ

Height (m)

Analysis of Variance for height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) discussed as under: Table 88 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Gohi Hokeria Ker Patriata Chonoyan Khanawas Hanaser

Sample Count 48 49 46 47 45 44

Average

Variance Min

Max

0.8933 0.8450 1.1550 0.9975 1.4260 1.5250

0.1557 0.1814 0.0919 0.1621 0.2457 0.4313

0.0242 0.0329 0.0084 0.0263 0.0604 0.1861

1.04 1.07 1.22 1.22 1.77 1.83

0.73 0.67 1.09 0.76 1.16 1.22

Greater than 32 25 23 18 27 22

ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0014

Page | 111

Less than 16 14 23 29 18 22

Figure 45 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii)

Pine 1.8000 1.6000

Height (m)

1.4000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000 Average

Gohi

Hokeria Ker

Patriata

Chonoyan

Khanawas

Hanaser

0.8933

0.8450

1.1550

0.9975

1.4260

1.5250

In coniferous forest only pinus trees were planted in GPP it includes Gohi, Hokeria Ker, Patriata, Chonoyan, Khanawas and Hanaser forest. The height of the pinus plant was observed maximum in Hanaser and minimum in Hokeria Ker (Figure 45). Gohi and Chonoyan showed intermediate height while the height of the pinus plant in Khanawas approaches to the height of plants in Hanaser. The analysis of variance showed maximum variation in Hanaser which is minimum in Gohi.

Page | 112

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Diameter (cm)

Analysis of Variance for diameter of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) discussed as under: Table 89 Diameter of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Gohi Hokeria Ker Patriata Chonoyan Khanawas Hanaser

Sample Count 48 49 46 47 45 44

Average

Variance Min

Max

1.2600 1.5975 2.4300 1.9075 3.9240 2.8150

0.4073 0.6353 0.8627 0.6814 0.2055 1.6476

0.1659 0.4036 0.7442 0.4643 0.0422 2.7145

1.01 0.74 1.82 0.93 3.72 1.65

1.73 2.25 3.04 2.54 4.22 3.98

Greater than 16 24.5 23 29.375 18 22

Patriata

Chonoyan

Khanawas

Hanaser

2.4300

1.9075

3.9240

2.8150

ANOVA Source of Variation P-value Between Groups 0.0003 Figure 46 Diameter of Pinus

Diameter (cm)

Pine 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Gohi Average

1.2600

Hokeria Ker 1.5975

Regarding the diameter of the plant it is maximum in Khanawas and minimum in the Gohi forest (Figure 46). Hanaser and Patriata showed almost same type of diameter but plants in Hanaser showed very much variation (Table 89). Hokeria Ker and Chonoyan also exhibit same trend in diameter but Chonoyan showed more variation than Hokeria Ker. Page | 113

Less than 32 24.5 23 17.625 27 22

5-B Rain Water Harvesting Devices The water harvesting devices/ water ponds had to be constructed to check the soil and water erosion in water shed areas of Punjab. These water ponds act as to improve the local climate and use as mitigation tools to control the fluids. These water ponds will also become the source to harvest the rainwater and use for the drinking purpose for local population, life stock and wildlife. These water ponds will also recharge the aquifer of the area. Total 82 Rain Water Harvesting Devices constructed.   

09 under Scrub Forests Component 22 under Protected & Guzara forests 51 under Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar)

However, serious observations regarding RWHDs are as under:        

NO standards of size, site selection and cost estimates had been followed During programme design , regardless of the size and site selection, RWHD standard rough estimate (Annexure – VII) had been allocated, released and utilized With respect to “recharge the aquifer” no Soil Study of the land marked for WHD/ponds was available Improper demarcation as well as irregular dimensions of water harvesting devices Suitability of Catchment area largely ignored while demarking WHD/ponds Poor maintenance of WHD/ponds as weeds were observed in WHD/ponds Afforestation along water harvesting devices (1000 No) partially had been done in very poorly manner Partially construction of check-Daims/ Gali Plughing (with loose stone masonry works) 1000 Cft

Page | 114

Measurements

Site Selection

Poor Maintenance -Spillway

Improper Demarcation

Afforestation

Improper Demarcation

Catchment Area

Poor Afforestation

No Afforestation

Page | 115

Page | 116

Page | 117

Environmental Impact Assessment

It is appreciable to include Environmental Impact Assessment but unfortunately, no preassessment reports prepared in the year 2016-17. PMU team responded that all assessment was universal established facts and historical records. But geographically GPP is being implemented in targets districts under respective components. Major goal of the GPP are as under:     

To mitigate the climate changes in the province To promote sustainably managed forests To sink the CO2 emissions trough plantation as sequestration tool To increase the soil conservation To improve the recharge of aquifer (Pothwar)

Therefore, Pre-Assessment Reports of any of the ten indicators especially microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of respective forest areas had to be prepared by competent authorities and including in the Revised PC-I.

Conclusion, Observations and Recommendations

On the basis of analysis of Key Performance Indicators, it is concluded that as whole plantation under GPP 2016-17 was partially satisfactory. Monthly, quarterly, biannually and annually monitoring & evaluation system had not been developed during design phase. Later on, PMU also ignored developing M& E and institutionalizing it. Therefore, spacing size (10’ x 06’) violated especially in Chichawatni and Changa Maanga. Selection of species were also neglected and mixed culture of indigenous, species not adopted as eucalyptus plantation was more than 65%. A uuncertain and high variation of height and diameter pointed out serious flaws in its execution, operation and maintenance and most importantly confines sustainable impact of Green Pakistan Programme. Although procurement had been done under GPP but no proper record, of the procedures followed as per PPRA rules, was provided by PMU-GPP. Dash Board development data analysis mainly depends on accurate GPS coordinates. But there was a wide variation between GPS coordinates data provided by PMU-GPP and received from field formation. As per Risk Mitigation Plan mentioned revised PC-I and interview with PMU team and field formation only risk factor is provision of funds corresponding to the seasonal activities especially Federal share. MOCC with close collaboration with FW&F Department and PMU-GPP should ensure strict monitoring of pre-defined space size, pre-selected species while restocking and plantation in coming years. Growth of height and diameter should be monitored and ensured through field monitoring and Dash board (Remote Sensing) because trees are carbon sequestration tool and mitigate climate change. All stakeholders should realize that there is a need to distinct between tree cover and forest cover. Page | 118

7.1

Observations

In addition to “limitations of the TPV study” as discussed earlier, field monitoring observations segregated into programme design and implementation are as under: Programme Design 1) Revised PC-I under “Implementation Strategy” stated selected species for planation under every component but “specie wise proportionate of plantation” had not been stated. 2) In revised PC-I, with respect to “water harvesting devices” no soil testing and survey of catchment areas recommended prior to site selection and approval of RWHD/ponds but it’s rough cost estimate was fixed. Programme Implementation 3) Under “Implementation Strategy” revised PC-I defined “spacing size” during plantation for every component but it was not followed by field formation and over plantation observed under “rehabilitation and restocking of historical plantation”. (Reference Report Page # 28). 4) Under “Implementation Strategy” revised PC-I had stated mix culture of selected species for every component. But mono culture of eucalyptus plantation was observed in Daphar Forest. (RRP # 43) 5) Revised PC-I under “Quantitative Objectives” stated “numbers of plantation” for every component. But monitoring record was not provided to TPV team by PMUGPP. 6) During field visits, inaccuracy of GPS coordinates of similar (Area/Length/AvM) provided by PMU/Field Formation with that of revised PC-I was observed due to not marking GPS Points. (Annexure-VIII) 7) During field monitoring grazing and tress passing was observed but compartment boundary pillars and fences were not found to protect plantation area. (RRP # 63) 8) Uncertain and high variation in “average” of height and diameter pointed out poor operation & maintenance mainly due to trenches & pits covered with extensive weeds and irregular irrigation patterns etc. (RRP # 63) 9) Comprehensive M&E System had not been designed and institutionalized by PMUGPP team. 10)It was observed that documents of procurement process made during the year 2016-17 were not provided by PMU-GPP to TPV team for review. 11)In revised PC-I, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stated but on the basis of historical data and no Pre-Assessment Reports of microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of respective forest areas were provided by PMUGPP to TPV team.

Page | 119

7.2

Recommendations

Following recommendation are segregated into programme design, implementation and sustainability. Programme Design 1) It is recommended that in order to mitigate the climate change “specie wise proportionate of plantation” should be stated in revised PC-I as trees are carbon sequestration tool. (Observation Reference # 1) 2) Rough Cost Estimate of Water Harvesting Device should be prepared and finalized after thoroughly reviewing reports of soil study, technical survey of catchment areas and drawing proposal. (OR # 2) Programme Implementation 3) As spacing size violation would adversely affect the growth of plantation, so should be followed onward during restocking and plantation. (OR # 3) 4) Mix culture of selected species as stated under “Implementation Strategy” in revised PC-I should be followed ahead during restocking and planation. (OR # 4) 5) Proper record of numbers of tree plantation, growth height and diameter should be maintained for monitoring and evaluation purposes. (OR # 5) 6) GPS Coordinates of all GPP (Areas/Lengths/AvM) should be rectified and correctly updated during the development of Dashboard and marking of GPS Points should also be done to increase the accuracy. (OR # 6) 7) To control grazing, tress passing and fire incident, GPP compartment boundary pillars and fences should be installed. (OR # 7) 8) For sustainability of the GPP plantation, uncertain and high variation in “average” of height and diameter should be monitored and efforts should be made to improve quality of operation & maintenance. (OR # 8) 9) It is recommended to designed and institutionalized comprehensive Result based M&E System for the programme after detailed consultation with key stakeholders. (OR # 9) 10)All records of procurement process should be documented and maintained at PMUGPP. (OR # 10) 11)Pre-Assessment Reports of ten indicators mentioned in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) especially microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of GPP target areas, should be prepared by competent authorities. (OR # 11) Programme Sustainability 12)For Sustainability of the programme PMU-GPP should enhanced its capacity and coordination among all stakeholders should be strengthened. 13)PMU-GPP should develop Management Information System (MIS) and Online database for real time monitoring data collection, processing and dissemination well as evidence-based policy making. 14)MOCC, PMU-GPP should engage academia and researchers especially from the domain of Climate Change, Forestry, Ecology and Wildlife to study impacts of its tree plantation on climate change, forestry, ecology and bio diversity. Page | 120

Annexure-I Comparative Cost Estimate of the last Sanctioned and Revised Scheme (Rs. In Million)

Page | 121

Annexure-II Scientific Name of Planted Species Scientific Names of Species Common Name Apple Amrood Aaru Anar Anjeer Alubukhara Avocado Amaltas Black Siris Bottle Brush Cheeku Ehretia Frash Jaamun Kikar Khoobani Lasoorah Lemon Leechi Malaina Meetha Naashpati Nim Orange Pilkan Phulai Peepal Poplar Pine Sumbal

Scientific Name Pyrus malus Psidium guajava Prunus persica Punica granatum Ficus carica Prunus bokhariensis Persea americana Cassia fistula Albizzia lebbek Callistemon Manilkara zapota Ehretia laevi Tamarix aphylla Syzygum cumini Acacia nilotica Prunus armeniaca Cordia Myxa Citrus limonium Litchi chinensis Gmelina arborea Acorus calamu Pyrus Azadirachta indica Citrus aurantium Ficus virens Acacia modesta Ficus religiosa Linn. Populus euramericana Pinus roxburghii Salmalia Malabrica (Dc.) Schott & Endl.

Sufaida Shisham Toot Tun White Siris

Eucalyptus globulus Dalbergia Sissoo Morus alba Cedrela toona Albizzia procera

Page | 122

Annexure-III Field Activity Sr. Component #

Circle

Division

Rehabilitation and 01-Jun-2018 Restocking of Historical Plantations -do04-Jun-2018

Lahore Forest Circle

Kasur Forest Changa Division Forest

Gujranwala

Increase in Existing 05-Jun-2018 Cover of Belas Forests

Gujranwala

Rehabilitation and 06- Jun -2018 Multan Restocking of Historical Plantations -do06- Jun -2018 Multan

Gujarat Forest Daphar Irrigated Division Plantation Gujarat Forest Bella Radially Division Bella Qadir Dhool Forest Chichawatni Chichawatni

1 2

Date

Name of Forest

Multan Division

Pirowal

Manga

-do-

07- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur

LSNP Division

LSNP Sub Division

-do-

07- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur

Ladam Sir-ll

-do-

07- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur

R.Y Khan

Abbasia Plantation

-do-do-

08- Jun -2018 D.G. Khan 08- Jun -2018 D.G. Khan

Layyah Layyah

Machu Inayat

Canal Side Plantation -do-

09- Jun -2018 Sargodha 09- Jun -2018

Bhakhar Mianwali

MLLC RD 0-131 L&R MLLC RD 131172/L&R

Road Side Plantation

11- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur

Bhawalpur

Increase in Existing 12- Jun -2018 Lahore/Skp Cover of Belas Forests 10 Restoration and 21- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Improvement of Scrub Forests

Karol

BahawalpurHasilpur Road KM 11-95/LR Raising of P. bag Nursery 737,000

Attock

Construction of Water 21- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Harvesting Devices in Scrub Forests

Attock

11 Construction of Water 22- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Harvesting Devices in Coniferous Forests Coniferous Forests 22- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi

North

12 Construction of Water 23- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Harvesting Devices in Coniferous Forests

Murree

North

Kali Dali Jand Beet (Twani â&#x20AC;&#x201C; III) Jalwal Fatuwala Bhangal Chonoyan Khanwas Kahuta Talater Jhila Chirarah Page | 123

13 Coniferous Forests -do-

23- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi 23- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi

14 Rehabilitation of 25- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Guzara and Protected Forest 15 Protection and 26- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar) -do-

26- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi

North North Guzara

Hanaser Gohi, Patriata Hokeria Ker Kahuta, Kallar Seydan Lehtrar

South (Jhelum)

South (Chakwaal)

Neeli 2 Neeli 2 Bareli 1 Sur Lateen Rakh Miro Pilo

Page | 124

Annexure-IV ADP Allocation, Release and Utilization

Page | 125

Annexure-V Procured items (Water Pumps)

Page | 126

Annexure-VI

Cost

Breakup

Expenditures

per

Acre

Afforestation for Irrigated plantation

Page | 127

Annexure-VII Rough Cost Estimate of Rain Water Harvesting (RWHD)

Page | 128

Annexure-VIII GPS Coordinates Sr. No

Forest Name

Coordinates by Pak Cpt # Green

Coordinates by Forest Department

Coordinates From PC-l

N32 26.133 E73 11.654 N32 26.319 E73 11.648

N32.438443 E73.198992 N32.438606 E73.194145 N32.435445 E73.194222 N32.435473 E73.199009

N32.4373 E73.1966

N32 26.449 E73 11.085 N32 26.453 E73 11.315 N32 26.611 E73 11.083

N32.443546 E73.191762 N32.443530 E73.184724 N32.440796 E73.184756 N32.440894 E73.191841

N32.4422 E73.1883

N32 26.278 E73 09.592 N32 26.433 E73 09.590 N32 26.281 E73 09.800 N32 26.431 E73 09.799

N32.438024 E73.163327 N32.440664 E73.163331 N32.442225 E73.159691 N32.442221 E73.157756

N32.4403 E73.1603

N32 26.440 E73 09.587 N32 26.534 E73 09.577 N32 26.531 E73 09.465

N32.441670 E73.154800 N32.441093 E73.154854 N32.440655 E73.159725 N32.437907 E73.159844 N32.424254 E73.167041 N32.424188 E73.161785 N32.421632 E73.161707 N32.421659 E73.161701

N32.4230 E73.1644

100

N32 25.422 E73 09.993 N32 25.428 E73 09.996 N32 25.430 E73 10.016 N32 25.426 E73 10.016

N32.406255 E73.195724 N32.406388 E73.192216 N32.402774 E73.192202 N32.402812 E73.195640

N32.4055 E73.1939

140

N32 24.482 E73 11.670 N32 24.488 E73 11.672 N32 24.484 E73 11.668 N32 24.478 E73 11.671

N30.304602 E72.355676 N30.303265 E72.355676 N30.302907 E72.354426 N30.304595 E72.354402

N30.5106 E72.5972

129

N30 30.562 E72 35.906 N30 30.557 E72 35.901 N30 30.560 E72 35.894 N30 30.549 E72 35.908

N30.301577 E72.333828 N30.30574 E72.333859 N30.30571 E72.333242 N30.301573 E72.333239

N30.5248 E72.5727

185

N30 30.116 E72 33.563 N30 30.115 E72 33.554 N30 30.127 E72 33.554 N30 30.127 E72 33.567

168

N30 30.592 E72 33.650 N30 30.598 E72 33.649

N30.305443 E72.335072 N30.303521 E72.335058

N30.5125 E72.5624

Gujrat

17-A Daphar

Chichawatni

17-B

Page | 129

N30 30.592 E72 33.648 N30 30.588 E72 33.653

N30.303514 E72.333831 N30.305439 E72.333818 N30.331643 E72.44611 N30.33657 E72.44609 N30.33654 E72.435332 N30.331601 E72.435368

N30.5550 E72.7333

21-B

N30 33.113 E72 43.983 N30 33.156 E72 43.892 N30 33.115 E72 43.910 N30 33.115 E72 43.925

N30.331637 E72.441861 N30.33706 E72.441835 N30.33327 E72.44642 N30.331634 E72.44634

N30.5518 E72.7367

23-A

N30 33.098 E72 44.122 N30 33.091 E72 44.122 N30 33.096 E72 44.131 N30 33.101 E72 44.129

N30.341266 E72.461185 N30.334617 E72.461226 N30.334642 E72.455929 N30.34707 E72.455920

N30.5663 E72.7683

N30 33.771 E72 46.013 N30 33.776 E72 46.025 N30 33.781 E72 46.057 N30 33.793 E72 46.056

Page | 130

“Revival of Forestry and Wildlife Resources in Pakistan”

Green Pakistan Programme - Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas

SAVE THE GLOBE

Page | 131